A Call to Action: Register Your Protest with YouTube for Censoring Science

[mooeypoo]

Just making a point here -- YouTube closes accounts that get 3 or so reports about violation of [anything].

Violations of [anything] are reported by anyone, and are usually not investigated. YouTube has no patience to start investigating each violation - the thought is that if people reported, people are right, and it's your responsibility to prove otherwise.

 

I have been a contributing member in the YT-Critical Thinking "Society" for quite a while, and I've seen people getting banned for their views. It's not a YouTube conspiracy, it's a member grouping together -- there was an incident where muslim users banded together to just mass-report a specific user's videos for the purpose of getting her banned.

 

They succeeded.

 

 

 

So, it's true that saying "conspiracy" is jumping to conclusions, *BUT* based on past experience and YouTube/Google's own admitted method of dealing with reports in this matter, it's not all *that* far fetched.

 

James Randi pisses a lot of people off; religious, pseudo scientists, psychics, and many more. You don't need millions of reports to get a user banned. This scenario is NOT that far fetched.

 

 

--

That said, a year ago Richard Dawkins' foundation was banned for the same reason (violation of copyright) for their own videos. They filed a complaint with YouTube, and after a while it was solved, but the reason they "went down" in the first place was the same malicious action by a group of users against their message.

[iNow]

Thank you for articulating it more clearly and supported than I was able, Moo. You have just captured the root and heart of my basic premise, despite the fact that I personally failed to convey it adequately thus far in the thread.

[mooeypoo]

The last time I was involved in an attempt to combat YouTube censorship, a friend of mine got her own video (of herself talking, no music in the background, no profanities, just her talking about atheism) removed for terms-of-service violation. I made that "

" video response that got #2 in YouTube for a few days and a bunch of vid responses; her video was reinstated, though I'm not sure I was the only (or major) cause.

 

It was fun, though.

 

Maybe I should repeat this with JREF style ...

[Kaeroll]

mooeypoo-

I had never seen that video before. While the lecture was fascinating, more interesting are the comments... many of them depress me. "Woah, the boobs are talking... wow... boobs... I don't think I've ever seen them on the internet before!"

[mooeypoo]

mooeypoo-

I had never seen that video before. While the lecture was fascinating, more interesting are the comments... many of them depress me. "Woah, the boobs are talking... wow... boobs... I don't think I've ever seen them on the internet before!"

Well there are a few that started getting interested in those issues after the boob thing, so I was actually considering starting a YouTube series called "The Science Boobs"....

[Kaeroll]

Well there are a few that started getting interested in those issues after the boob thing, so I was actually considering starting a YouTube series called "The Science Boobs"....

Good idea - though you'd have to squeeze as many puns and innuendos in as possible. Like... using jiggle to describe oscillations, or something.

[mooeypoo]

Good idea - though you'd have to squeeze as many puns and innuendos in as possible. Like... using jiggle to describe oscillations, or something.

You should see my "Naughty Science" website... http://www.smartaxe.com

[Kaeroll]

Oh dear. Dare I click that link?

[mooeypoo]

Oh dear. Dare I click that link?

Only if you're over 17.

[Kaeroll]

Only if you're over 17.

Depressingly so. It was a very good year...

[mooeypoo]

Depressingly so. It was a very good year...

I'm hoping that after visiting SmartAxe it will no longer be so depressing to be over 17..

[Kaeroll]

I'm hoping that after visiting SmartAxe it will no longer be so depressing to be over 17..

You're going straight to hell young lady!

 

(.. see you there. )

[GutZ]

The way I see it I have every right to complain. If I don't like what you are doing I have every right to express it.. Whether you change your behaviour is up to you. You might value your relationship with me and decide it far more worth not to continue the action.

 

That's a reciprocal relationship. Youtube doesn't like what I am doing, It can ban me for the site. As an individual I don't bring much to the site, BUT the accumlation of users do.

 

So if there is somethig Youtube does that a bunch of people don't like regardless if it's warranted or not, they have power. Just like those who try to shut it down.

 

Now it's youtube's responsiblity to manage this enviroment. To keep everyone happy. Youtube is in an unfavorable position, but that's what happens when you try to make profit. If they don't want issues then either don't censor and deal with lawsuits or...listen to complains.

 

P.S.

 

PHYSIC's Boobs was not expected. I didn't think it would happen, I though when do the boobs come into play...and then there was boobs.

 

nice boobs btw *tips hat*

[JohnB]

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.

Reread. I wasn't making any assumptions. I outlined a possibility, suitably prefaced by the word "perhaps".

 

Compare these two quotes:

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.

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.

The first is a collection of definitive statements "are choosing", "they are", the second is a hypothetical course of events.

 

The first took it's assumptions as facts and stated them as such, the second did not.

Originally Posted by JohnB

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.

With 1,490,000 hits to your search I'm not going to bother looking at them all, but let's take the first 10, shall we?

1. Wiki.

YouTube blocked the account of Wael Abbas, an activist who posted videos of police brutality, voting irregularities and anti-government demonstrations.

While the gentleman concerned is Egyptian, I would think the complaints had more to do with police not liking the world seeing what they were up to than religion, wouldn't you? I'm sure the LAPD were just ecstatic when the Rodney King video went worldwide. The account and 187 of Mr. Abbass' vids have been restored.

YouTube also removed a video produced by the American Life League which is critical of Planned Parenthood.

This would be censorship against "those who are religious", would it not? The account has been restored.

YouTube has been criticised for censoring Alisa Apps music videos, whilst allowing Rambo clips to be shown where decapitations and other gore scenes are visible throughout.

Also from Wiki: Three of her videos have been censored for sexual content and possible violence after being posted on YouTube.

A fair argument. I've never understood why a naked boob is bad but a naked gun is acceptable. Unfortunately it has apparently little to do with religion.

In 2006, Thailand blocked access to YouTube for users with Thai I.P addresses. Thai authorities identified 20 offensive videos and demanded that Google remove them before it would allow unblocking of all YouTube content.

There is no mention of why the Thai gov felt the vids were offensive, but it may be worth remembering that insulting the King is an offence there.

In 2007 a Turkish judge ordered access to YouTube blocked because of content that insulted Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, a crime under Turkish law.

Firstly I have great respect for Kemal Attaturk. Secondly a judge found in accordance with the laws of the land. Hardly religious censorship. Attaturk was not a religious leader.

On February 22, 2008, Pakistan Telecommunications attempted to block regional access to YouTube following a government order.

Four days later, Pakistan Telecom lifted the ban after YouTube removed religiously controversial comments made by a Dutch government official concerning Islam. Congratulations, you got a hit. An Islamic inclined gov put pressure on youtube to remove something it found offensive.

In October 2008, YouTube removed a video by Pat Condell called Welcome to Saudi Britain, in response his fans re-uploaded the video themselves and the National Secular Society wrote to YouTube in protest.

The video was restored. Some points about the video and it's defenders.

The video: "In it Condell criticises Britain's sanctioning of a Sharia court, and refers to the entire country of Saudi Arabia as mentally ill for its abuse of women." The entire country is mentally unstable? There's a balanced view for you.

"The National Secular Society were amongst the complainants to YouTube, saying "as usual, he (Condell) does not mince his words, but he is not saying anything that is untrue." "He is not saying anything that is untrue". Another balanced viewpoint. I wonder how many Saudis the "Secular Society" have actually met and talked to, to allow them to come to their profound conclusion?

Nevertheless, this would have to count as a second hit concerning "those who are religious". That's 2.

During the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, YouTube removed videos of air strikes against Hamas that were posted by the IDF.

Do you think religion or politics had more to do with this?

 

2. Well the NYT op ed about the removal of vids by Michelle Malkin. (Never heard of her) While she no doubt offended the religious, in the words of the NYT: This is not to suggest that Ms. Malkin’s video would not be particularly offensive to some people. There is little that Ms. Malkin says or does that is not. So is it fair to solely blame "those who are religious"? No.

 

Well that's a couple of minutes I won't get back. "Say no to needless and opressive censorship". Just a general statement though.

 

Okay, he's not on the "Guru" list anymore. Youtube says it's a bug. The first of his three possibilities is that youtube stuffed up. But he concludes it must be the creationists and he is about to get banned. Riiiiiiight. Simplest answer? It's a bug.

 

5. Digg asks "Why is YouTube censoring some videos, but not others?", yet doesn't even postulate on an answer.

 

6. Yes, it's article on "those who are religious" again. The Chinese Communist Government and their "Way of the Censor".

 

7. The Angry Aussie blog is ranting about people ranting about Youtube censorship.

 

The one thing that concerns me is the likely abuse of the flagging process now that YouTube has broadened what content will be flagged as “adult”. This doesn’t bother me because of any new standards, it bothers me because of YouTube’s established track record. Essentially there is a parade of f***ing idiotic decisions in their past and I would expect this to get worse, not better.

I'm trying to see how "those who are religious" are involved here, but can't quite make the connection.

 

Are the somnambulists here still with me?

 

8. Oh look, it's the poster child of the religious right. No, not really, it's the Chinese Communists again. And it's the Chinese gov, not youtube who are doing the censoring this time.

 

9. The Frank Zappa Family Trust is a religious group? No, it's not.

 

10. OMG. A thread at Above Top Secret forums! Including a link to "The Top-Ten Conspiracy Theories" selected and prioritized by members and visitors to the site. Organised Religion came in at No 9, but not for censoring youtube.

 

Now some of the saner members here are probably wondering; "Why did he go to all that trouble? Is he a masochist?, An idiot?" Those who have known me longer quickly realise Option C is probably a good bet.

 

Seriously. I asked iNow specifically:

On what evidence did you accuse "those who are religious" of attempting to censor JREF?

He responded:

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.

And offered the Google link as proof.

 

However, as I have exhaustingly shown, while consorship has definitely been occurring, there is little evidence that "Those who are religious" are behind it. If we were to go by the first 10 hits, it's more likely the Chinese gov is censoring youtube.

 

So again, iNow you are bereft of any evidence to back up the claim you made in 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.

The statement is false. You may feel persecuted in some way, but you have yet to show that it is actually happening on a wide scale or in an organised manner.

 

My point all along has been to make you see that you are doing exactly what you claim the theists do every time you jump in with a comment about their beliefs.

 

mooeypoo, everything you say is correct AFAICT, however I'll bet it's true for both sides. Are you willing to bet that no atheists have done a quick run around and got some creationists suspended in the same manner? I'm not, as such action would be perfectly "normal" for the fringe of any group of humans.

 

BTW, you need a new a new t shirt.

[iNow]

So again, iNow you are bereft of any evidence to back up the claim you made in the OP.

This is so silly, but I do appreciate the time you took with your post, and the effort you put into it. However, the simple fact is that there is a history of scientific and atheistic posts being targeted by religious groups on YouTube, and in the OP I was making more of an observation than a claim.

 

Either way, the fact that these videos are being selectively targeted is true, and I'm rather confident that is exactly what happened with the James Randi videos. I concede that I've failed to support this with clear and decisive evidence here in this thread, and that I was offering an opinion/conjecture informed by past experiences.

 

If you disagree, then that is your prerogative, and nobody is forcing you to stand up for the free exchange of ideas and information, or to show that there is a large internet community out there who is tired of being pushed around by those who would prefer to censor their critics than to respond to their criticisms directly.

[Sayonara]

The channel has been restored...

[GutZ]

The power of the internet people...Obama watch your back!

[iNow]

The channel has been restored...

 

Outstanding. Thanks for the update.

 

 

For those who are still somewhat in the dark, here is the channel that had been banned. Review it for yourself to learn more:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/jamesrandifoundation?blend=2&ob=4

[JohnB]

This is so silly, but I do appreciate the time you took with your post, and the effort you put into it.

I've learnt the hard way to make sure of my facts when going up against you.

Either way, the fact that these videos are being selectively targeted is true, and I'm rather confident that is exactly what happened with the James Randi videos. I concede that I've failed to support this with clear and decisive evidence here in this thread, and that I was offering an opinion/conjecture informed by past experiences.

You're probably right as to the cause, I was just against, shall we say, conviction without proof? I happen to think that the principle of "Innocent until proven guilty" is the greatest step forward for freedom in human legal history.

 

I was also amused by the antics and rants of the anti-heavenly host over at pharyngula. For a bunch who seem to think themselves quite rational, their conclusion jumping rants were illuminating, to say the least.

If you disagree, then that is your prerogative, and nobody is forcing you to stand up for the free exchange of ideas and information

Actually I do support these things, for everyone. Unfortunately for you, in another debate you stand firmly beside those who demand their opponents be: Ridiculed, suspended, fired, denied access to media, refused publication in journals, likened to holocaust deniers and jailed for crimes against humanity.

 

So do you really believe in the free exchange of ideas, or just those you happen to agree with? Voltaire is reputed to have said:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Until you defend the rights of everybody to free speech, you don't believe in the principle of free speech.

 

Because of this I would support for example a holocaust denier being given the chance to speak publicly. Firstly to support his right to free speech and secondly so that I know where to find the SOB and beat the sh*t out of him.

[Kaeroll]

Because of this I would support for example a holocaust denier being given the chance to speak publicly. Firstly to support his right to free speech and secondly so that I know where to find the SOB and beat the sh*t out of him.

I had this argument with someone very recently - a smooth, eloquent student of politics who was leading a campaign to silence the BNP (British National Party, the UK's resident facists). I raised the point that we have no right to silence them, and in doing so we might lend them the strength of being the 'oppressed underdog' - all we can do is allow them to speak, and vocally oppose them at every turn.

[mooeypoo]

I agree that freedom of speech is important, but I disagree that it's absolute.

Defamation is a problem, (if not an outright example of where freedom of speech ends). Also, cases where an influential leader calls his followers to conduct illigal acts is, in my opinion at least, also an example of where the freedom of speech ends (and even if you disagree with me, you have to admit it's at least a PROBLEM worth thinking about).

 

For example, if a NeoNazi leader that has a lot of influence on people of his "community" goes out and yells that Obama is deserving of murder, I would say this is an outright example where freedom of speech does not hold.

 

Freedom of speech is important, but not at all costs. As is with everything.

[GutZ]

Even a neo nazi shouting Obama is deserving of murder should have rights to say so. What if it was not a neo nazi, and someone trying to make a point? Maybe they just felt like saying it.

 

I don't think anything that doesn't cause direct harm should be taken away from people. Ideas and words harm those that allow them too. I am not saying that I wouldn't clock a guy standing infront of me insulting my Girlfriend or whatnot (that's my choice reaction). Because anything can be offensive. Some religious people find evolution to be quite offensive.

 

 

Mooeypoo, you are a well adjusted individual, but alot of people are not. We would of been hung many thousnads of years of for the things discussed on this board. That's not time dependant. People can think up all sort of irrational reasons to have a specific idea or voice hushed.

 

Therefore Freedom of Speech must remain pure. As long as you make rational stipulations there are 10 other wanting irrational ones in place.

[iNow]

I was also amused by the antics and rants of the anti-heavenly host over at pharyngula. For a bunch who seem to think themselves quite rational, their conclusion jumping rants were illuminating, to say the least.

Well, while many of the commenters over there consider themselves as rational, it's usually isolated in context of faith and religious belief, and doesn't necessarily extend to other realms of intellectualism. There are a lot of really dumb people who just like to associate with those who seem smart, but being an atheist does not necessitate being rational or intelligent, nor does being religious necessitate being irrational or stupid.

 

Interestingly, PZ himself commented on this very recently:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/religious_people_arent_necessa.php

 

FWIW, I just read the posts over there, much like I read other blogs that have something I find valuable and interesting. I don't comment, nor do I spend any time reading the comments. I go there to see what the presenter of the site has to say, not what his readers or fans have to say.

 

 

Actually I do support these things, for everyone. Unfortunately for you, in another debate you stand firmly beside those who demand their opponents be: Ridiculed, suspended, fired, denied access to media, refused publication in journals, likened to holocaust deniers and jailed for crimes against humanity.

I do not stand firmly beside those desiring many of those things, and I would challenge you to show where I associate with any of the things you listed (with the exception of some well placed and poignant ridicule). I am quite willing to ridicule people who have silly and childish beliefs, and my hope is that they will realize how foolish they sound when spouting them and start to think twice about how it will make them look if they say such things in public.

 

However, I completely defend their right to say it, as that's the only way I can defend my right to criticize it. I see it more as motivating them to self-censor, and would really never attempt or argue to censor them on their behalf outright. I fully recognize how the freedom of speech door swings in both directions.

 

What I take some issue with is your suggestion that I would EVER be for the active muzzling of these folks, or a refusal of publication for them, or that they should be fired/suspended for belief. I, myself, have repeatedly used that Voltaire quote you've shared. From our past (and really fun, enriching) exchanges, you seem to understand me and my thoughts somewhat well, but in this context you've totally and completely missed the mark, and you're conflating my posting habits with those of the people you've read in the comments section at Pharyngula.

 

That's not me, and while it may be difficult for those who are only paying minimal attention to see the difference between me and them, it is there and it's both deep and wide.

 

 

Until you defend the rights of everybody to free speech, you don't believe in the principle of free speech.

See above, my friend. It appears that you need to review your mental representation of me as a person, as you're currently working from a false premise.

 

Now, from the looks of it, you've spawned a very interesting topic for further conversation, and I'm going to stop here as I'm excited to see where this discussion goes about the limits (or lack thereof) of free speech. I tend to agree with the sentiment made by Moo, that free speech is not some carte blanche, but we'll see what others think.

 

 

Thanks again, John. It's always a pleasure.

 

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Interestingly, shortly after making the above post, I came across this article at the Economist:

 

 

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13413974

 

Religion and human rights

The meaning of freedom

Apr 2nd 2009

From The Economist print edition

Why freedom of speech must include the right to “defame” religions

AT FIRST glance, the resolution on “religious defamation” adopted by the UN’s Human Rights Council on March 26th, mainly at the behest of Islamic countries, reads like another piece of harmless verbiage churned out by a toothless international bureaucracy. What is wrong with saying, as the resolution does, that some Muslims faced prejudice in the aftermath of September 2001? But a closer look at the resolution’s language, and the context in which it was adopted (with an unholy trio of Pakistan, Belarus and Venezuela acting as sponsors), makes clear that bigger issues are at stake.

 

The resolution says... <

more at the link

>

Edited April 4, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.