Author Topic: More YouTube Censorship (Read 20824 times)

Renegade · « **on:** April 04, 2012, 11:09 PM »

Well, it is a company, and it can do what it wants, but seriously? Censoring? It just doesn't go down well...

Here's the censored video:

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=IswA63-Zqkw

And commentary on the censorship - ON YOUTUBE~!

HAHAHAHAHAHHAA~!

And an article on the video being pulled:

http://www.prisonpla...s-to-be-treated.html

Poking fun at a public figure who openly calls for skeptics of man-made global warming to be “treated” as a way of re-educating them is apparently off limits for You Tube, who censored a video in which Alex Jones used absurdist satire as a vehicle to illustrate the crackpot and dangerous beliefs of University of Oregon Professor Kari Norgaard.

The original video can be viewed at that URL via Blip.tv.

I saw the video the other day, and all he did was poke fun at this professor:

Jones gave her the "Skeksy Award", which is really just a joke.

There's nothing remotely worth censoring in the video. Sure the humour may be a bit silly, but so what?

And yeah... it's a publicly traded company and all that... But still... Whether it's Amazon deleting books, or Apple banning apps, or Google censoring videos, there's something sickening about control freak censorship.

IainB · « **Reply #1 on:** April 05, 2012, 09:02 AM »

Well, you've had things such as, for example:

The publication of the World Government Plan (The Covenant) by the proponents of AGW;
An AGW spokesman coming out and specifying that their "Cause" is World Government;
The proposal of a new "World Bank" to collect punitive carbon taxes/fines and redistribute that wealth to poorer countries, and it's to have immunity from prosecution too, under the wing of the UN;
The UN IPCC's litany of "mistakes" and misinformation, and a stochastic lie in the shape of the "hockey stick";
The proposal by a scientist to genetically modify humans to adapt them to accepting the AGW creed;
Now a sociologist recommending that skeptics be "treated" for their skepticism as though it were a social crime;
The Climategate 1 and 2 FOIA files;
The Gleickgate fraud.

What else do you need?
Hmm...if it smells like a rat and looks like a rat, then...but no, I see no rats here.

Could it all be just a big joke?

tomos · « **Reply #2 on:** April 05, 2012, 01:50 PM »

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy
prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten

Dunno what google are thinking - **
I presume they were put under (a lot of?) pressure to remove this, but even so, what kind of response did they expect...

I saw the video the other day, and all he did was poke fun at this professor:
-Renegade (April 04, 2012, 11:09 PM)

looks like you're poking fun a bit at the professor as well :p
She does seem to mostly have a fairly quirky expression, but I cant help wondering if the first pic you show is photoshopped (*not* saying you had anything to do with it if it is!)

** [edit] then again, I havent seen the video - is it on show anywhere else? [/edit]

[another_edit] here it is. I'd censor it for not being funny; for being very personal (harrassing bullying?); but I dont believe in censorship myself, &, I suppose it's besides the point - but I've seen lots worse on youtube [/another_edit]

Renegade · « **Reply #3 on:** April 05, 2012, 07:27 PM »

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy
prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten

Dunno what google are thinking - **
I presume they were put under (a lot of?) pressure to remove this, but even so, what kind of response did they expect...
-tomos (April 05, 2012, 01:50 PM)

So, in other words, they were politically motivated to remove the video... Which is even worse. (I'm glad you pointed that out as I didn't want to, but rather leave it for someone else to notice.)

looks like you're poking fun a bit at the professor as well :p
She does seem to mostly have a fairly quirky expression, but I cant help wondering if the first pic you show is photoshopped (*not* saying you had anything to do with it if it is!)
-tomos (April 05, 2012, 01:50 PM)

That's the thing - I didn't poke fun at her at all. I didn't need to. I merely needed to post her picture, and leave it to you to poke fun at her without any intervention from myself.

She looks crazed.

And no - that photo isn't photoshopped. That's her.

** [edit] then again, I havent seen the video - is it on show anywhere else? [/edit]

[another_edit] here it is. I'd censor it for not being funny; for being very personal (harrassing bullying?); but I dont believe in censorship myself, &, I suppose it's besides the point - but I've seen lots worse on youtube [/another_edit]
-tomos (April 05, 2012, 01:50 PM)

Alex isn't a great comedian, and his humour is a bit over the top sometimes. So yeah, I can certainly see why some wouldn't find it very funny. He goes more for ridiculous than funny.

But still - nothing in the video warranted censorship.

Renegade · « **Reply #4 on:** April 05, 2012, 07:36 PM »

If you do not believe me, here is a link with her mugshot:

http://www.whitman.e...mrpresident/norgaard

Not shopped!

Renegade · « **Reply #5 on:** April 06, 2012, 12:25 AM »

I tripped across another incident of YouTube censorship quite by accident.

I'm putting it in a spoiler though as the topic of the censored video is likely to cause some controversy. I am not trying to highlight any controversy or advocate any position or discredit any position, so please don't get that idea -- I am merely pointing out censorship (or what certainly looks like censorship -- you decide for yourself though).

For those that are predisposed to being easily offended, don't click the spoiler.

Potentially offensive to some people

So, I came across a link to this site:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

And was interested in what they had to say about the science/facts. Clicking through to here:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/WTC2.html

They link to this video:

http://www.youtube.c.../watch?v=lXEdrpzU_Qg

With a note below it:

The above video has been removed from youtube. However, we are leaving the link to show how evidence is disappearing from the net.

Now, given the highly charged nature of the topic, I find it rather difficult to believe that the account was terminated for any other reason than to censor.

In any event... I don't know the absolute Truth about exactly why that video is gone, but it is rather suspect.

tomos · « **Reply #6 on:** April 06, 2012, 05:32 AM »

Veering slightly off-topic:

# The creation of the humerous/offensive video (Alex Jones) serves to
a large extent to make people more sympathetic to the person/cause
it so personally attacks. (I'm talking about people who are not already
supporters of that cause **)

# YouTube/Google OTOH, by censoring the video, ironically serve to
create sympathy for the person/cause they censor.

This could be called my opinion - but to me this is patently obvious.
I see it again and again and again and again. People who think they
are helping a cause actually damaging it and thereby supporting
whatever it is they're fighting...

** I'm a good example of a casual fairly neutral person watching the
vid - and I am honestly neutral in this climate debate because I'm
so totally confused by it at this stage. I see what this woman has
written as offensive and stupid. I watch his video and I sympathise
with her -because of the personal attack on her looks/facial expression-
and thereby his (Alex Jones) cause is weakened in my eyes.

Similarly with Google's censorship..

mwb1100 · « **Reply #7 on:** April 06, 2012, 10:52 AM »

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy
prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten

Dunno what google are thinking - **
I presume they were put under (a lot of?) pressure to remove this, but even so, what kind of response did they expect...
-tomos (April 05, 2012, 01:50 PM)

So, in other words, they were politically motivated to remove the video... Which is even worse. (I'm glad you pointed that out as I didn't want to, but rather leave it for someone else to notice.)

-Renegade (April 05, 2012, 07:27 PM)

I would have guessed that rather than a lot of pressure, all it might have required was a request by the professor herself.

I imagine that youtube probably doesn't consider her a public figure in the same way that a politician or 'celebrity' is. And I wouldn't be surprised if youtube more or less takes the word of the claimed 'harrassee' when they make such a complaint. I also think that would be a pretty reasonable policy.

Of course, I'm just speculating.

mwb1100 · « **Reply #8 on:** April 06, 2012, 11:05 AM »

I see what this woman has written as offensive and stupid.
-tomos (April 06, 2012, 05:32 AM)

I couldn't find the paper - all I found was an abstract, a brief announcement about the paper, and the characterizations of what the paper said in the infowars.com and prisonplanet articles/videos.

And quite frankly, after reading the abstract I'm quite sure I'd have a hard time slogging thorough the paper, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to read it.

I'm also more than a little skeptical of the description by the infowars.com/prisonplanet articles and videos.

Renegade · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2012, 05:39 AM »

I see what this woman has written as offensive and stupid.
-tomos (April 06, 2012, 05:32 AM)

I couldn't find the paper - all I found was an abstract, a brief announcement about the paper, and the characterizations of what the paper said in the infowars.com and prisonplanet articles/videos.

And quite frankly, after reading the abstract I'm quite sure I'd have a hard time slogging thorough the paper, so I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to read it.

I'm also more than a little skeptical of the description by the infowars.com/prisonplanet articles and videos.

-mwb1100 (April 06, 2012, 11:05 AM)

Just search on her name and there are a ton of people freaking out over her nuttiness. Infowars is very far from alone in ridiculing her.

Tinman57 · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2012, 07:26 PM »

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 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2012, 09:15 PM »

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 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 11, 2012, 04:31 AM »

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:

Spoiler

I 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)

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 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 11, 2012, 05:30 AM »

@IainB

I 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 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 11, 2012, 11:47 AM »

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) ?

CWuestefeld · « **Reply #15 on:** April 11, 2012, 12:21 PM »

Google can NOT engage in censorship. They're a private entity choosing how they want to use their resources.

I'm willing to be that each of you would willingly engage in this same kind of "censorship". If someone came into your home -- even with an invitation -- and started saying insulting things to your family, wouldn't you ask them to leave? It's your home, and you're well within your rights to control the kinds of things that others do there.

Indeed, our system needs to work this way. We recognize that the government must not interfere with people's ability to speak, but that doesn't mean that we want to have profanity and porn displayed on every street corner. Instead, we rely on the values of the people to exert social pressures on each other, so that the overall cultural values are preserved.

katykaty · « **Reply #16 on:** April 11, 2012, 02:09 PM »

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....
-Tinman57 (April 10, 2012, 07:26 PM)

Would it make a difference if she didn't look like 'a nut job'?

Tinman57 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 11, 2012, 08:08 PM »

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....
-Tinman57 (April 10, 2012, 07:26 PM)
Would it make a difference if she didn't look like 'a nut job'?
-katykaty (April 11, 2012, 02:09 PM)

Nope. A nut job is a nut job, no matter what you look like. It just so happens that she also looks the part.
Or perhaps your looking for another answer, like: Oh yeah, if she was a fox we shouldn't ridicule her!

I think Paul Watson was right on the money when he said "While some may find it offensive that Jones referred to Norgaard in a derogatory manner, what’s a thousand times more offensive is her gall in brazenly advocating that anyone who dares challenge the man-made global warming mantra be “treated,” presumably with the aid of pharmaceutical drugs, for having a psychiatric disorder, or that they be smeared as racists simply for disagreeing on a highly contentious scientific issue.

Not challenging that kind of arcane, ludicrous and despotic rhetoric, which has been embraced by others in the scientific field, is far more dangerous than Alex Jones cracking jokes about Norgaard being a stereotypical cat lady."

MilesOhToole · « **Reply #18 on:** April 11, 2012, 10:30 PM »

At first I thought this was someone's idea of a cruel joke and threw a wig on Stephen Hawking.

J-Mac · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2012, 12:36 AM »

At first I thought this was someone's idea of a cruel joke and threw a wig on Stephen Hawking.
-MilesOhToole (April 11, 2012, 10:30 PM)

Is that considered offensive toward the professor? Or Stephen Hawking?!?

Jim

J-Mac · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2012, 12:40 AM »

OK, kidding aside, I couldn't find much about what the professor wrote in her paper but if anyone is paraphrasing her accurately then I agree that she seems a bit wacky. At the same time, that whole web site featuring Alex Jones appears to be more wacky yet. Look up "wild-eyed conspiracy theorist wacko" and I bet it links directly to that web site!!

Talk about a pot and kettle! Whew!

Jim

mwb1100 · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2012, 01:19 AM »

As far as I can tell, the source of the idea that this professor advocates "pharmacological or psychological treatment" for people who deny global warming comes from press statement about the talk at the conference. According to http://wattsupwithth...gon-press-statement/, that statement said:

Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change.
-http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2012/3/simultaneous-action-needed-break-cultural-inertia-climate-change-respons

(note: the words "and treated" have been removed from the uoregon.edu page, presumably due to the events that started this thread).

I think it's a stretch to read that sentence as meaning the professor advocates a Soviet-style reeducation gulag for climate change skeptics. Even if you disagree with what the professor actually does say.

In case anyone cares, I'd read that sentence as meaning something more like "... must be recognized and dealt with before real action can be taken..." rather than "... must be recognized and treated with drugs and psychotherapy before real action can be taken..."

Update: Here's a story in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard newspaper about this incident: http://www.registerg....html.csp?print=true

Renegade · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2012, 03:41 AM »

Google can NOT engage in censorship. They're a private entity choosing how they want to use their resources.
-CWuestefeld (April 11, 2012, 12:21 PM)

It's still censorship no matter whether they're public or private. Censorship is censorship.

However, it is certainly within YouTube's purvey to censor. Sure. No problem there.

But, it would be the exact same case for a restaurant throwing someone out and telling them that black people are welcome there. There is no significant difference. A privately owned restaurant is under no obligation to serve anyone that they don't want to.

a bit long

The same would go for a privately owned bus company refusing to allow children on the bus. Hey, it's their bus.

YouTube is a privately held company owned by Google. It is a UCC or social media site that specializes in video. The key there is "social media". But it has no "theme".

For example, if I were to post a video of cute puppies and kittens at YouPorn.com, I would fully expect it to be taken down, because YouPorn is for porn, and not cute animals. Conversely, most other sites, like Vimeo, have terms of service that prohibit porn.

It is the "terms of service" that laregly defines what is and is not acceptable at a site. The video that was pulled by YouTube did not violate the terms of service. That is censorship.

So the question is, do we treat large media or social media sites as media and demand a certain level of integrity, honesty, and tolerance?

Again, it is certainly within YouTube's purvey to censor.

But that still makes them censors in the same way that kicking a black kid out of your restaurant makes you a racist, or blocking 2 men (or 2 women) from getting married makes you a homophobe.

Now, it's not my place to say whether you or anyone else can or cannot be a racist or homophobe or censor. I just think that they're all douchey.

I'm willing to be that each of you would willingly engage in this same kind of "censorship". If someone came into your home -- even with an invitation -- and started saying insulting things to your family, wouldn't you ask them to leave? It's your home, and you're well within your rights to control the kinds of things that others do there.
-CWuestefeld (April 11, 2012, 12:21 PM)

I don't really think that's a valid comparison. A private home is not comparable to a private business. We have very different standards for them.

My restaurant example above is closer.

Indeed, our system needs to work this way. We recognize that the government must not interfere with people's ability to speak, but that doesn't mean that we want to have profanity and porn displayed on every street corner. Instead, we rely on the values of the people to exert social pressures on each other, so that the overall cultural values are preserved.
-CWuestefeld (April 11, 2012, 12:21 PM)

The censorship in this case was simply someone disagreeing with a position and making a joke that didn't include any profanity or obscenity.

We have the right to hate people of different races, or whatever - but that doesn't mean we should. Same for censorship. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Renegade · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2012, 05:07 AM »

OK, kidding aside, I couldn't find much about what the professor wrote in her paper but if anyone is paraphrasing her accurately then I agree that she seems a bit wacky. At the same time, that whole web site featuring Alex Jones appears to be more wacky yet. Look up "wild-eyed conspiracy theorist wacko" and I bet it links directly to that web site!!

Talk about a pot and kettle! Whew!

Jim
-J-Mac (April 12, 2012, 12:40 AM)

http://www.theregist...m_slavery_treatment/

The discussion, she said, is comparable to what happened with challenges to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.

http://www.examiner....epticism-with-racism

Climate change activist Kari Norgaard equates skepticism with racism

Global warming alarmist, Kari Norgaard, equates skepticism about climate change to racism. They have been labeled with many names, but skeptics now endure the most egregious, insulting, name-calling of all.

So, who is Kari Norgaard that we should worry about whom she calls racists? Miss Norgaard is a member of the Sociology Department at the University of Oregon and current caller of climate catastrophe in ‘Planet Under Pressure,’ a climate conference in London. She presented a paper calling for climate change skepticism to be treated as a 'sickness' or mental illness.

...

So, yeah, I am alarmed by Miss Norgaard and the way-off-scale sociological socialists in her academic neighborhoods. They have ignored the hard science of climate change, have not noticed that the debate goes on, and are using the perpetuated lies to gain power over people. Their arguments appear logical at first blush until the ‘sickness’ they see in others manifests from within themselves. An alarming cancer is growing within the global warming alarmist group.

This reminds me of the scarey stuff we read about in George Orwell’s book, 1984. Is Big Brother watching us? No, Kari Norgaard is.

http://www.dailymail...epticism-racism.html

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature.

And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

The difference between Alex Jones and pretty much any other site that reports on the same material, is that he'll say what he thinks or give some analysis, or simply call something for what it is, or point out the obvious implications that people don't want to hear.

The entire "conspiracy theory" stuff is just a tool to shut down debate on a topic. More often than not what people call "conspiracy theories" are really just plain old pieces of history that makes people uncomfortable. e.g. The US regularly uses false flag attacks, just like it did with the Gulf of Tonkin incident that it used to drag the American people into war in Viet Nam. Sure - lots of people will call it a "conspiracy theory". It's just history. There's nothing controversial in saying that the US government lies to its people on a regular basis in order to drag the country into wars. History proves it.

So, yeah... If knowing a bit of history makes someone a "conspiracy theorist", I guess Alex Jones is. I guess I am as well.

But isn't it strange that a lot of these inconvenient facts never seem to make it into most history books... Hmmm...

Censoring history?

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that either.

tomos · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2012, 06:16 AM »

Update: Here's a story in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard newspaper about this incident: http://www.registerg....html.csp?print=true
-mwb1100 (April 12, 2012, 01:19 AM)

thanks for that

it confirms my suspicions that the attack, while based on something all right, is also very distorted (intentionally, or simply through lack of responsibility i.e. presuming she meant something from one word and not actually checking) and grossly exaggerated.

“I don’t think this is a space where there’s a real public discourse,” she said. “It’s obvious to me that people aren’t interested in what I actually have to say.

“These are personal attacks. ... If you’re interested in my work, read it. It’s OK to disagree about things, but do so in an honest way and don’t attack people personally.”

Me, I'm tired of all this BS where people pounce on something and rant and rave and exaggerate and ignore. How abouts getting back to good old down to earth responses. All this ranting and raving only serves to marginalise... I for one would love to see a real dabate about what's going on with climate change but dont trust anyone at all at this stage - well especially not people who rant and rave about the other side. It like mutually exclusive religions - and unfortunately both sides are treating it as a belief thing, and adding lots of unhelpful attitudes into the mix.

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) ?
-tomos (April 11, 2012, 11:47 AM)