Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

More YouTube Censorship

<< < (3/9) > >>

Tinman57:
  From what I read about her she's a nut job (and she looks the part).  Considering she makes her views public, any opposing views shouldn't be Censored, even if it is satirical or mean.  That's the price you pay for going public, you are a public figure....

Renegade:
Since being bombarded with ridicule, they (the prof & university) have come out again saying something like, "Oh, that's not what we meant. You misunderstand us. We're the good guys..." Yeah. Right. They also silently edited a few things...

IainB:
Well, humans invented Fascism, gulags, political censorship, and every other nasty thing that we do to our fellow-humans, so I suspect this case (under discussion) is merely another manifestation or reflection of the rather more unsavoury aspects of our natures. We can't help it. Similarly she probably can't help it, if she so firmly believes in AGW that she recommends "unbelievers" be given psychological correction, or something.
That's arguably less worse - by a considerable margin - than being unlucky enough to (say) have your head cut off as punishment for being an Infidel (unbeliever in Islam).

Bit off-topic:
SpoilerI tripped across another incident of YouTube censorship quite by accident.
...(video "9/11 airtraffic controller describes flight 17..." removed due to account being closed)
-Renegade (April 06, 2012, 12:25 AM)
--- End quote ---
Surely lots of people would have copied/downloaded that video?
I always take a copy of videos I see that I suspect may be variously censored or not allowed to stay "up" for very long.
I wouldn't mind seeing that one.
EDIT: This might be it:
Air traffic Controller Describes Flight 175 Anomalies

Renegade:
@IainBI think you found it! :)

I also think that it's highly likely that the people writing there aren't that "Internet savvy" and don't know what you posted there about multiple uploads.

tomos:
Not having read her paper (have any of us read her paper?) I cant say I honestly trust any representations of it here or linked here. I mean it *sounds* like it's over the top, but I know that very many of the "against" people -yeah, just like very many of the "pro-people" ;-) love to exaggerate and generalise without actually quoting very closely - or giving decent references, or maybe without even quoting at all...

I reread any quotes I could find linked here or linked from the pages linked here, and nothing I found quoted actually said what people said she was saying. Now possibly that's because she said it in too wordy a manner. But I think if you're going to attack someone so personally, why not make sure people can believe what you say (that she said) ?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page