iNow Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 v7Cn_gjevik http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/youtube_has_banned_the_james_r.phpYouTube has banned the James Randi Educational Foundation!?!?This is Insane! All you have to do is click this link:http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/static.py?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=account&selected=asked_to_login&ctx=account_asked_to_login_55755... Go to the bottom right of the page and click "New Issue." Then, file a report asking that the account of the James Randi Educational Foundation be reopened.It's sad that those who are religious and easily offended are choosing to push technologies like YouTube to censor their critics instead of address them and argue on the merits of their position... but, they are, and we need to fight back.I'm just asking you to stand up for academic freedom and open/free debate, and to register your complaint with YouTube, asking that they reinstate the account of the JREF. It will take less than 60 seconds.Please also consider responding to this thread when you do so it will stay "bumped" to the top of the new posts list. Thanks friends.
Kyrisch Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 What justification did they have to ban the account in the first place?
iNow Posted March 31, 2009 Author Posted March 31, 2009 What justification did they have to ban the account in the first place? James Randi likely said something critical of anti-science creationists and was thus hit with false accusations/reported posts. He is best known for debunking psychics and nonsense attackers of science, especially of the creationist variety. Check out his site (to which I also linked in the OP): http://www.randi.org/site/ Randi is like a much larger version of SFNs own dbunked website.
YT2095 Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 All you have to do is click this link: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/static.py?page=troubleshooter.cs&problem=account&selected=asked_to_login&ctx=account_asked_to_login_55755 request/complaint sent.
Kaeroll Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I sense a boycott. I'll spread the love to my other internet haunts...
Phi for All Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 James Randi likely said something critical of anti-science creationists and was thus hit with false accusations/reported posts.Can this be confirmed? I would like to know the reason before I start complaining about it. Two irrational actions don't make a rational one.
Ophiolite Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Can this be confirmed? I would like to know the reason before I start complaining about it. Two irrational actions don't make a rational one.I agree. I like bandwagons, but I can't jump as high as I used to.
JohnB Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 James Randi likely said something critical of anti-science creationists and was thus hit with false accusations/reported posts. Possibly not. To quote from post #162 on the thread at pharyngula; "Sean: there were a few complaints about Oprah material and some from Dean Radin, as well. YouTube shut us down pending our resolution of these problems. I expect we'll be back up very soon... James Randi." Sheesh, and some people call theists irrational. If conclusion jumping was an Olympic Event, there's plenty of Gold Medal material there. We like to poke fun at the tin foil hat brigade and their conspiracy theories, but JREF gets suspended and everybody automatically assumes it's the result of some "God Squad" conspiracy? On zero evidence? I also notice that the voices of reason, the "Let's find out the facts before we do anything silly" chapter were basically ignored.
Kaeroll Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Sheesh, and some people call theists irrational. If conclusion jumping was an Olympic Event, there's plenty of Gold Medal material there. Guilty as charged. Pardon me while I hang my head in shame.
YT2095 Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I think you`ll find (if transdecimal is also a firefox user) that using that link given (the one I quoted), doesn`t work, and the options to resolve the cookies problem for Firefox isn`t there either, most Everyone I know is at Least on version 3 I thought it complaint worthy
iNow Posted March 31, 2009 Author Posted March 31, 2009 Oh, pulll-eeez... So, you are all okay that a site debunking nonsense was removed due to a few comments about Oprah? Give me a break, folks. Thanks to all of you who have stood up and voiced your support for the free exchange of information and ideas. This is about reminding everyone that we are willing to fight for the ideals of free expression and debate, and that we won't cower to those who use censorship as a method of circumventing defense of their position. (Note: This post is not in response to YT, just the general "I don't know if I can protest them taking down videos which debunk nonsense" comments being made).
Dudde Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I have to agree with iNow for that one - the post quoted above does little to explain why their account would be suspended for any means, I make fun of Oprah all the time. I don't see how it violated their user agreement...it probably did because youtube is stupid sometimes, but I haven't read the agreement so I don't know. They're hardly the first to talk about something high profile however EDIT: I filed a complaint last night anyway Edited March 31, 2009 by Dudde forgot
JohnB Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 Oh, pulll-eeez... So, you are all okay that a site debunking nonsense was removed due to a few comments about Oprah? Give me a break, folks. It was not comments, but complaints. If JREF used excerpts from her show without permission they would be breaching copyright. Or is a "site debunking nonsense" above the law? Thanks to all of you who have stood up and voiced your support for the free exchange of information and ideas. This is about reminding everyone that we are willing to fight for the ideals of free expression and debate, and that we won't cower to those who use censorship as a method of circumventing defense of their position. You still have no proof of any censorship occurring. This is about reminding everyone not to jump to conclusions. There is just too little information to draw valid conclusions from.
iNow Posted March 31, 2009 Author Posted March 31, 2009 You still have no proof of any censorship occurring. When you click here to view the James Randi YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/jamesrandifoundation?blend=2&ob=4 ... You see the message: This account is suspended. Tell me... What more proof do you need? I suspect that you are just being pedantic and giving me a hard time about my use of the word "censorship." If so, you raise a valid point, but I don't know what else you may have me call it. Care to offer suggestions?
scrappy Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I must have missed the part about YouTube being a pubic servant. Isn’t YouTube just another profiteering ad service on the Internet? Why should it be required to air or not air anything it doesn’t like, even if is obviously biased toward religion? Should the SFN forum be required to carry threads and posts it opposes? Don’t the mods & admin here take equivalent measures against threads and posters they don’t like? So what’s the big deal?
Kaeroll Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 I must have missed the part about YouTube being a pubic servant. Isn’t YouTube just another profiteering ad service on the Internet? Why should it be required to air or not air anything it doesn’t like, even if is obviously biased toward religion? Should the SFN forum be required to carry threads and posts it opposes? Don’t the mods & admin here take equivalent measures against threads and posters they don’t like? So what’s the big deal? YouTube is not a speciality/interest site. In my opinion, given the huge levels of use it gets, it has a duty to remain as impartial as possible (which includes removing Randi's account if he's been in violation of their terms and conditions) They're also much higher profile than SFN; their actions make worldwide news fairly regularly.
iNow Posted March 31, 2009 Author Posted March 31, 2009 If JREF used excerpts from her show without permission they would be breaching copyright. Or is a "site debunking nonsense" above the law? Another fair point, but I ask why, then, did they not merely remove the offending video as opposed to locking out and disabling EVERY SINGLE VIDEO EVER POSTED by the James Randi Educational Foundation? I would not be miffed if they simply closed a video until it was edited due to copyright concerns, but they locked out every single contribution ever posted by the JREF and that's rather problematic.
john5746 Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 From my experience, this is normal for Youtube. They suspend accounts and give very little feedback to the user. It happens too frequently. I agree that one video, not the whole site should be suspended, but if its a DMCA deal, then I think they just suspend the whole site. We will see.
YT2095 Posted March 31, 2009 Posted March 31, 2009 if it IS a genuine attack on Science (and nothing else), then I`d be very inclined to complain also (if they fix that cookie problem).
JohnB Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 Tell me... What more proof do you need? That the account is suspended? None. I suspect that you are just being pedantic and giving me a hard time about my use of the word "censorship." Not really. I'm giving you a hard time because you have taken one fact, the account being suspended and building a very large number of assumptions on it came up with some sort of bizarre conspiracy/censorship fantasy. You concluded from zero evidence, what had happened and who was responsible. From the OP: It's sad that those who are religious and easily offended are choosing to push technologies like YouTube to censor their critics instead of address them and argue on the merits of their position... but, they are, and we need to fight back. On what evidence did you accuse "those who are religious" of attempting to censor JREF? The opinions of posters at pharyngula? Where did they get their proof? Nowhere! JREFs account was suspended and of course it was an underhanded act by religious zealots. They jumped to a conclusion and immediately started ranting about the evil zealots. They encouraged others to mirror the youtube vid and make it go viral. All with no proof. You happily jumped on the bandwagon to spread the news about the evil zealots censoring science and restricting acedemic freedom. Again with no proof. You don't see the amusing symmetry in those defenders of reason and proof behaving in exactly the same fashion that they decry in their opposition? Another fair point, but I ask why, then, did they not merely remove the offending video as opposed to locking out and disabling EVERY SINGLE VIDEO EVER POSTED by the James Randi Educational Foundation? I would not be miffed if they simply closed a video until it was edited due to copyright concerns, but they locked out every single contribution ever posted by the JREF and that's rather problematic. Perhaps there were more than one video. This would make JREF a serial offender in the eyes of the law. It would then be totally appropriate for youtube to suspend the account, pending JREF showing proof that they had reviewed their vids and edited for copyright content. It is not the job of youtube to review vids for copyright content, it is the job of the uploader to ensure there are no violations. Again, the only thing known is that the account was suspended. When it comes back online, perhaps the reason(s) for the suspension will become known. However if the reasons included repeated copyright violations by JREF, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to admit it. 1
iNow Posted April 1, 2009 Author Posted April 1, 2009 On what evidence did you accuse "those who are religious" of attempting to censor JREF? It's a pattern which has been encountered repeatedly and consistently. I concede that I was making an assumption, but that assumption was well supported with historical precedent. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=k9i&q=who+is+responsible+for+youtube+censorship&btnG=Search You happily jumped on the bandwagon to spread the news about the evil zealots censoring science and restricting acedemic freedom. Again with no proof. As I tried to explain previously, I see this as a larger issue, and I am standing more on principle. It's important that our voices be heard in support of free exchange of ideas and information, even if the stated circumstances are somewhat lacking in evidential support. Perhaps there were more than one video. This would make JREF a serial offender in the eyes of the law. It would then be totally appropriate for youtube to suspend the account, pending JREF showing proof that they had reviewed their vids and edited for copyright content. It's funny how in one sentence you accuse me of making assumptions without facts, then do the very same thing yourself in the next sentence. That's classy. It is not the job of youtube to review vids for copyright content, it is the job of the uploader to ensure there are no violations. Show me again where exactly you proved that there were violations in the videos. I think I must have missed that part while you were criticizing me for posting ideas and assumptions without definitive details and supporting evidence.
YT2095 Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I`ll have a word with Cap`n , maybe he can introduce an "Irony points" system as well as our Rep points
scrappy Posted April 1, 2009 Posted April 1, 2009 I'm giving you a hard time because you have taken one fact, the account being suspended and building a very large number of assumptions on it came up with some sort of bizarre conspiracy/censorship fantasy. It's good to see someone else call a knee-jerk reaction for what it really is.
1nc4rnation Posted April 2, 2009 Posted April 2, 2009 Cannot the JREF simply create a new account under another alias and this time, not violate the youtube terms of service? Now I don't know the exact details, but I am sure it is a relatively trivial matter to use the system to set up some sort of entity that is only linked to the JREF, for the promotion of it's videos on youtube. Why should I have to expend so much energy protesting a non-issue which the JREF can easily solve on it's own? I've got a mid-term to study for.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now