Jump to content

You Tube Censorship


Mikefight
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not sure if any of you watch youtube videos by Rabidape, Brett Keane, or any other atheist on youtube, there is an issue that concerns me. Some athiest are being banned from youtube. Gisburne was banned for inapproriate content. The video had quotes from the quran. Angel was banned for copyright infringement, her video was her denying the holy spirit, no music, no graphics.

 

The christians must be flagging all the atheist videos trying the silence them. The sad thing is youtube is banning them. This seems like a good place for class action lawsuit.

 

Other atheist have reposted banned videos. Here are the links.

[/url]

http://youtube.com/profile?user=RabidApe

 

And the god is imaginary video has a popup that states

This video may contain content that is inappropriate for some users, as flagged by YouTube's user community.

 

It is not inappropriate:

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FtfBckoVIZo

 

Not sure what action to take, but this seems a little unfair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what action to take, but this seems a little unfair.

It's more than a little unfair....it's discrimination.

I'm also not sure what action to take on this matter :shrug:

 

To the best of my knowledge atheists were flagging glennreb and firefly515. For some reason the christians don't seem to have been censored or banned. At all. Nothing is happening to them and their messages of hate.

 

I'm still wondering if it's only christians or if muslims are also involved. I guess who is doing it doesn't really matter, what does matter is atheists aren't being treated the same as others.

 

No equal rights

No freedom of speech

 

Your right, this is a good place for a lawsuit. Something to give atheists the right to speak freely and to have equal rights just like those of the religious communities. Personally I am tired of being looked down on in society when it comes to my opinion as an atheist. I think that youtube has managed to bring this more into the light. They are discriminating against atheists period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem with popular censorship. Minority groups can rally together and flag content as inappropriate at will because they are only too aware of the fact that there is [please correct me if I'm wrong] no forum for dissent towards the dissenters. In other words Fundies can flag content but Atheists can't challenge the flagging without involving the [extremely costly] legal system. The reason why it works so well is because organised religion is just that, organised! All a pastor has to do is inform his flock about such videos on youtube and before long there is a major xian backlash. I feel fairly confident in saying that even the most likeable and popular of Atheist couldn't mobilise a church-sized reaction to that kind of dissent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, anangel13 wasn't banned, she's just had a video, one, removed for something or another. We're not sure yet. There is at least one muslim group, in youtube groups, who are actively targeting people. I understand why Gisburne was banned, and it stinks, but anangel, hmmmm... that's going to be tricky for them to actually ban her. We'll see. It's an interesting issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks...

 

The "Golden Rule" is at work here.

 

"He who has the Gold, makes the Rules"

 

You are getting what you pay for when you use YouTube's no.cost.to.you and their services.

 

Their Rules, their Playground, Googles attorneys, and the sheer weight of a legal department that answers to no one outside their system.

 

Elect to post video content on their services? Prepare to play by their Terms Of Service.

Even if the TOS is ambigous and illy written, you don't fully understand what it means to punch the "Yes, I agree" button and continue means N O T H I N G to Google.

 

The "game" as I'm seeing it played is like the rating and ranking scores given on the Fundy boards with the "blessings" and such.

At GoogleTube, you get "smacked" enough, the machinery takes your vid and eventually your account down.

 

What I'll suggest is that you use the technology of home producing your own content and then using places like tinypic.com (and others as I can update my lists) to hang then link.

 

Thing is folks, "we'll" always be outnumbered by "them", and the popularity contests will be won in the public venues by sheer weight of numbers.

 

We won't get message out quitting, but we'll have to get smarter..

 

k, dumb as a fuckin' box of rocks, but twice as horny, FL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just watched a video by a muslim, regarding the flagging of videos.

 

He says it like nivek. When you hit the OK button you have agreed to their Terms of Service.

 

Babbling on about freedom of speech is no longer relevant.

 

I'll make my vids, try to avoid copyright violation (it's nice to have music behind videos), hammer on about christianity and atheism, and if I get flagged to death and pulled, tough shit. I hope I will have made some people think in the meantime.

 

My subscribers are growing (much to my amazement) and I'm having some useful online debates. (at the moment someone is trying to convince me that atheism and moral relativism are the same thing, and that I cannot truly be "free" outside of god's morality)

 

But I don't think that YouTube is the frontline of a civil liberties war. It's rather a bit of a storm in a teacup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not that difficult to level the playing field.

 

The necessary hardware is cheap or free. The software and operating systems are free. The high speed connections are cheap. A few years ago, I got sick and tired of the nonsense and crap involved with the so-called "Free" web page services, so I put together a machine from old leftover parts, installed Red Hat Linux 9, and had my own web server set up and working faster and more reliable than the free services. Cost to me? Nothing but the electricity it uses and a $10/year domain name registration; it uses the same internet connection I use already. You can see it at digitalquirk.ca. Now I can put up whatever content I want, and nobody can shut me down or silence me. If they want to complain, their complaint goes to me, and I tell them to pound salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
So why hasn't someone just created an atheist version of YouTube then?
The fuck do we want an "AtheisTube" for? To continue preaching to the 'choir', which unlike actual choirs, don't need preaching to or further convincing? The great thing about YT used to be that practically no expression of free speech was problematic as long as it wasn't inciting of violence. I was just thinking earlier today how cool it was to be able to expose people to these things that were outside of their boxes, which they had no choice but to sidestep or confront.

 

What's happening here, is that these people thought that they could chase us out, but, finding that their logic was inferior, and their force ineffectual, they have no choice but to try to force people to act on their behalf. Essentially, they have to cheat. When they're successful, they'll spend all their time convincing themselves that they won righteously, and that we never stood a chance anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhampir beat me to it. :) I was thinking much the same thing. How many of US would go to the GodTube or Conversopedia (or whatever the hell they're called?)? None? Exactly. In fact I remember quite a few jokes at how pathetic the whole concept was. But now an "atheist" version of these things are somehow "good?" I call bullshit on a double-standard.

 

The point, as I saw it, was that YouTube was a (supposed) level playing field and by clicking around someone could be exposed to all these different ideas and viewpoints. This has got to be a scary thing for the folks who cannot have their world views challenged (especially for their kids to be exposed to something outside the box) so a "separate but equal or even superior" atheist version of YouTube is the same as when someone sends us a link to AiG and expects us to take it seriously. It just won't happen. "Oh. It's those people and their crazy ideas" would be what comes to mind. Forget that.

 

Either YouTube needs a proper review/appeal process or "atheists" (as a minority group) needs to become organized enough to get a legal voice and challenge these things. The former would be preferred (to me) because I don't like the idea of a Jesse Jackson or Gloria Allred type for atheists (mis)representing me each time someone says/does the tiniest little thing that I really could care less about just to further an agenda they've set (usually creating little factions from what I've seen in the other groups).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Xtians have such well thought out reasoned arguments against all the anti Xtian videos why do they still insist on getting them pulled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sapient_v_geller/

 

Sapient v. Geller

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is fighting back against Uri Geller -- the "paranormalist" famous for seemingly bending spoons with his mind -- on behalf of a YouTube critic who was silenced by Geller's baseless copyright claims.

 

EFF's client, Brian Sapient, belongs to a group called the "Rational Response Squad," which is dedicated to debunking what it calls irrational beliefs. As part of their mission, Sapient and others post videos to YouTube that they say demonstrate this irrationality. One of the videos that Sapient uploaded came from a NOVA program called "Secrets of the Psychics," which challenges the performance techniques of Geller.

 

Despite the fact that only eight seconds of the over thirteen-minute video contain footage allegedly under copyright owned by Geller's corporation Explorogist Ltd. -- a classic fair use of the material for criticism purposes -- Geller filed a takedown demand with YouTube under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). That violates the DMCA requirement that copyright holders only send takedown notices for infringing content. Because of Geller's unlawful DMCA notice, Sapient's YouTube account was suspended, and his videos were not available for over two weeks.

 

On May 8, 2007, EFF filed suit on behalf of Sapient, asking for damages due to Geller's violation of the DMCA, a declaratory judgment that the NOVA video does not infringe Geller's copyrights, and that Geller be restrained from bringing any further legal action against Sapient in connection to the clip.

 

As Sapient was challenging Geller's meritless claims, Explorologist filed a separate lawsuit against Sapient in Pennsylvania. The suit includes more bogus charges, with many of them based on the assertion that Explorologist has the copyright to eight seconds of the introductory footage in the NOVA video. On June 12, 2007, EFF filed a motion to dismiss this frivolous lawsuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video takedowns based on content have to be approved by people with YouTube, so that's not probably much of a problem.

 

Takedowns based on fraudulent DMCA notices, however, are. Counter-notification is the way to go in cases where the video is clearly non-infringing.

 

YouTube spells out how to do it here: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/...py?answer=59826

 

EDIT: I would extremely happy if Brett Keane would make an AtheisTube and quit posting on YouTube. The man makes atheists look bad. He's like a YouTube atheist version of Pat Robertson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.