Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Youtube and growing censorship

Expand Messages
  • Richard Amirault
    ... From: Jay dedman (snip) ... What a load of BS. .. speech on the Internet .. is not what is being curtailed, regulated, censored, what-have-you. It
    Message 1 of 6 , Aug 31, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Jay dedman"
      (snip)
      > "... But remember this: If speech on the Internet
      > is determined by terms of service agreements set forth by private
      > companies not only beholden to advertisers, partners and shareholders,
      > but also to international pressures, then there will be no real
      > freedom of speech on the Internet."

      What a load of BS. " .. speech on the Internet .." is not what is being
      curtailed, regulated, censored, what-have-you. It is speech on ONE
      particular website. One website that is *not* owned by the people making
      the "speech" in question.

      Richard Amirault
      Boston, MA, USA
      http://n1jdu.org
      http://fandom.n1jdu.org
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
    • bordercollieaustralianshepherd
      Nice find. Though the complexity of it is still hanging like a chad. It took me a couple of rereads of this paragraph; It s an even finer line between
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 31, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Nice find. Though the complexity of it is still hanging like a chad.

        It took me a couple of rereads of this paragraph;

        "It's an even finer line between philosophical absolutism and "just
        once in the name of popular condemnation." If that sounds obtuse it's
        because I unsuccessfully tried to boil down something complex into a
        few wordsÂ…"

        but once again, assured that all "ism's" bug me.
        <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism>

        Corporations (and and to lesser and greater degrees, governments) like
        to claim that people, the consumer or the market dictate their actions
        (or laws enacted), business and bottom line. Censuring is the opposite
        of this (at least that is as best I can explain myself at the moment).
        It works (free speech in this case) when it "Works" for them.

        I like how this was summed up (others have said it better)...
        "Net Neutrality isn't just about gate-keeping, it's about fundamental
        rights to speak our minds whether or not others think we should, and
        about other people not being able to stop us from speaking our minds.
        But most of all, it's about the people keeping control of their
        free-speech area, and keeping it open for debate."

        If I had to choose between filtered and unfiltered. I am going with
        unfiltered. I pick what I want to read, can research what I don't know
        or understand, and ultimately filter what is of interest (into the
        glass) and ignore (Flush) the crap. But I guess what is more important
        to me is that even things that I don't agree with can have a positive
        impact on my decision making or contribute to my knowledge of a
        subject, event or opposing opinion.

        Knowledge truly is power. It is what you do with it. Go ahead ... say
        I suffer from Idealism. That "ism" is one I do like.

        Hey really liked the four language Hip Hop vid. Post the whole thing!

        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
        >
        > Here's a good blog post describing recent episodes of Youtube
        > censoring the videos on its site, and crumbling under government
        > pressure:
        > http://tinyurl.com/34bk8w
        >
        > "Even in America, where freedom of speech is the first among rights,
        > there will be struggles to define its limits, where it is acceptable
        > to speak, and how loudly. But remember this: If speech on the Internet
        > is determined by terms of service agreements set forth by private
        > companies not only beholden to advertisers, partners and shareholders,
        > but also to international pressures, then there will be no real
        > freedom of speech on the Internet."
        >
        > Jay
        >
        > --
        > http://jaydedman.com
        > 917 371 6790
        >
      • Jay dedman
        ... i think your argument is too simple. when the company in question is Google/Youtube, their influence starts becoming more than a sliver of reality. Their
        Message 3 of 6 , Aug 31, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          > What a load of BS. " .. speech on the Internet .." is not what is being
          > curtailed, regulated, censored, what-have-you. It is speech on ONE
          > particular website. One website that is *not* owned by the people making
          > the "speech" in question.

          i think your argument is too simple.
          when the company in question is Google/Youtube, their influence starts
          becoming more than a sliver of reality. Their practices start defining
          how businesses is done, and what cooperation governments expect out of
          companies. Self-censorship becomes the norm.

          But I do take your point that this company (Google) can do what it likes.
          just makes independent video sites like blip.tv all the more
          attractive for users.

          Jay



          --
          http://jaydedman.com
          917 371 6790
        • Shannon Noble
          What is it that it s called in culture, what story exemplifies this norm ? Everyone is looking at the lowest common denominator. Youtube. Youtube is
          Message 4 of 6 , Aug 31, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            What is it that it's called in culture, what story exemplifies this "norm"?

            Everyone is looking at the lowest common denominator. Youtube.

            Youtube is NBC/CBS/ABC internet plus more reality tv then reality tv can put
            out. Right, it's only one site and it garners the most.

            Damn, al-queda put's up vids there!!! They may last for an hour or so, but
            they are there. It's like going out on the Venice Boardwalk in California,
            it's something we haven't defined yet and won't really have an analogy that
            functions for us yet, not for several years. And most of us will be dead
            before it has a name and something to be understood and applied. It's like
            Vaudville.

            Damn, I can watch beatbox harmonica or Mexican Mafia infighting videos.

            You are all correct about this, though you keep your analysis to your own
            simplified and limited perceptions. Enculturated ones that you don't even
            know you have. 90 percent of your desires are unconscious.

            The word "censhorship" doesn't really work here any longer. I new word needs
            to come forth and define this.

            I would point out though that "load of BS" doesn't help define what should
            be an intelligent analyis. Respect all involved and we can figure it out
            somewhat I suspect.

            I'm a hypocrite.

            Google doesn't "start defining how business" is done. It already knows. It's
            got a model. That model is Western culture and it's business practices. It's
            nothing new. It's business as usual.





            On 8/31/07, Jay dedman <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
            >
            > > What a load of BS. " .. speech on the Internet .." is not what is
            > being
            > > curtailed, regulated, censored, what-have-you. It is speech on ONE
            > > particular website. One website that is *not* owned by the people making
            > > the "speech" in question.
            >
            > i think your argument is too simple.
            > when the company in question is Google/Youtube, their influence starts
            > becoming more than a sliver of reality. Their practices start defining
            > how businesses is done, and what cooperation governments expect out of
            > companies. Self-censorship becomes the norm.
            >
            > But I do take your point that this company (Google) can do what it likes.
            > just makes independent video sites like blip.tv all the more
            > attractive for users.
            >
            > Jay
            >
            > --
            > http://jaydedman.com
            > 917 371 6790
            >
            >



            --
            Softwired
            http://nnon.tv/softwired


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • danielmcvicar
            Those are examples of Youtube exercising editorial control over their servers and sites. However, Using Youtube is not a right. It is a remarkably free
            Message 5 of 6 , Aug 31, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Those are examples of Youtube exercising editorial control over their
              servers and sites.

              However, Using Youtube is not a right. It is a remarkably free
              service for posting and publishing video, and there are terms for
              using that.

              However, if you posted on your server material, and the government
              shut it down, it would be censorship.

              It is great that more points of view are busting through the corporate
              media's stranglehold on information and conversation. It will
              continue, and we will all be better for it.



              --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Jay dedman" <jay.dedman@...> wrote:
              >
              > Here's a good blog post describing recent episodes of Youtube
              > censoring the videos on its site, and crumbling under government
              > pressure:
              > http://tinyurl.com/34bk8w
              >
              > "Even in America, where freedom of speech is the first among rights,
              > there will be struggles to define its limits, where it is acceptable
              > to speak, and how loudly. But remember this: If speech on the Internet
              > is determined by terms of service agreements set forth by private
              > companies not only beholden to advertisers, partners and shareholders,
              > but also to international pressures, then there will be no real
              > freedom of speech on the Internet."
              >
              > Jay
              >
              > --
              > http://jaydedman.com
              > 917 371 6790
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.