Slashdot Log In
Egyptian Blogger Silenced by YouTube, Yahoo!
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Nov 30, 2007 08:14 AM
from the citizen-journalists-need-credentials-now dept.
from the citizen-journalists-need-credentials-now dept.
An anonymous reader writes "An Egyptian human rights activist has been muzzled after YouTube and Yahoo! shut down his accounts. Award-winning blogger Wael Abbas regularly writes and posts video about police brutality, torture and sexual harassment in Egypt. One of the videos — of an Egyptian bus driver being brutalized by an officer — was used as evidence to convict two members of the police force. That's a rare occurrence in a country where human-rights groups say torture is rampant. YouTube said the decision to remove Abbas' videos had nothing to do with the Egyptian government, but was rather an internal decision."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Silenced? Censorship? (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody has the right to express their views through somebody else's medium, particularly graphic violence through a medium like YouTube that is marketed as family-friendly. This guy hasn't been silenced, he's been kicked off particular services. He is free to use other services, isn't he?
Let's not dilute and weaken the term "censorship" please. It is a despicable act and Google and Yahoo choosing not to provide service to him is not even close.
Re:Silenced? Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Your Address
Date of writing
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
To whom it may concern:
I have been a faithful user of Google for several years now. I'm proud to support a company that offers great products (search, email, calendars, photo management, videos, etc.) while remaining consumer friendly. I especially appreciate Google
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Videos like this are ver
Re:Silenced? Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those accounts haven't been suspended yet, because they haven't been "reported" enough as violating the terms of service. Please remember, YouTube isn't a person. YouTube doesn't even employ video screeners who watch all videos as they are uploaded. The screeners only look at videos that have been reported for violating the terms of service and there are also multiple different screeners who may have slightly different standards and must make judgement calls on what gets pulled and what doe
Re: (Score:2)
If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point.
If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned.
You're dealing with cultural definitions and tolerances for graphic violence. My guess would be that Google is drawing the line at what is illegal for display in the UK (a much narrower range than the U.S. where graphic violence appears every night on network TV). Blame Google if you want, but I'm not sure that you are standing on solid ground. Then again, I don't know the specifics, and I'm guessing as to their rationale.
Re:Silenced? Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Actually, it is Censorship (Score:5, Insightful)
Private entities have the right to censor, but it remains censorship. States also have the right to censor; it doesn't stop the act from being censorship when it occurs. Nor does it prevent the act from being wrong.
Parent
internal decision (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhm... internal decision? So they mean that they didn't bother to even wait for the government to order them to remove it? And this is supposed to make them look better or what?
Not really (Score:2)
Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.
So why, may I ask, is the Slashdot community so biased over youtube... when clearly the blogger chose to post content he knew to be unacceptable according to the terms of this FREE service.
If this content was removed from his blog... or if his blog was removed..
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, they're hindering the progress of human rights in Egypt, and I could give a fuck about their TOS in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
And we are entitled to complain about it - we are entitled to publically state that what they are doing is immoral - we are entitled to think much less of the companies involved - we are entitled to ask them for an explanation - we are entitled to use other services.
What you appear to suggest is "don't complain, just use someone else". You seem to think that complaining has no effect. That's not true, though - clever companies listen to complaints even before the users abandon their services. They change their behaviour not only when it's already costing them money, but also when it appears likely that it might do so. Apart from that - raising the issue gets other people interested, and that puts even more pressure on the company involved.
Voicing our opinions is one of our fundamental rights. Exercising this right may occasionally have negative consequences for companies doing immoral things. Tough cookies if their shareholders don't like it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Youtube's terms of service prohibit graphic violence. The terms of service were violated, and the violator was punished. If this was any other person, posting random violence, there'd be no scandal over his removal.
1) Broadcast organizations usually make a distinction between graphic violence for entertainment (like bloodsports) and graphic violence for journalistic and humans rights reasons because the latter does not normally harm the reputation of the broadcast network, but actually enhances it.
2) You are assuming that this is the reason his content was removed. That is EXTREMELY unlikely. If his content was popular, and all evidence say it way, lots of people were watching it and generating ad revenue for Google.
TFA summarized (Score:3, Insightful)
YouTube: "Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it."
Commentary: "OK, why then can I find dozens of videos of people getting tasered by the police? If you ask me, a video of someone getting shocked with a high voltage weapon can definitely be described as graphic violence. And many will argue that the violence in such videos cannot be qualified as gratuitous.
Left in their "Satisfaction Survey" (Score:2)
How can documenting human rights abuses be gratuitous? Your policy is against specifically gratuitous violence, after all. I would ask you and your owner (Google) to reverse this evil, and reinstate him forthwith.
tags (Score:2, Interesting)
I assume the ! means Not.
So "Not do not evil" ???
Maybe it's misspelled, Homer. Maybe it's supposed to be donut evil.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I've just made an internal decision of my own... (Score:2)
From now on Yahoo is blocked on my network as well. Sorry, it was an 'internal decision' to block it.
Normal service will resume when (if?) Yahoo pull their socks up.
Next up: US Blogger Silenced by US Corp. (Score:5, Informative)
For all those comments saying this has to do with how bad the situation is in Egypt, it does not.
This is indicative of the situation in the US where these corporations exist.
Historical record shows that corporate entities have big financial incentives to aid and abet the suppression of human rights in democratic societies that are closing down and turning into dictatorship states.
Naomi Wolf, an award winning feminist writer who used to be part of the Clinton clique has recently written a book [amazon.com] about this. For those who would like to check it out there is an youtube speech [youtube.com] she gave recently detailing the main concept of her recent research.
The U.S. is in a downward spiral and predictions can be made for what comes next. The attacks are first directed at the margins of society, then the lines get blurred and everyone becomes fair game. Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action. Journalists are already being harassed, bloggers will come soon after.
It reminds me of a poem I once heard:
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
Martin Niemöller [wikipedia.org] (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.
Next up: A lesson on the constitution (Score:2, Informative)
Note the first word. It says Congress, not Youtube. You have no rights when playing on someone else's property. If you don't like playing by someone else's rules, run your blog from your own server, or somewhere else.
P.S. Reductio ad Hitlerum doesn't help your argument.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess you didn't read my post or any of the information I linked.
If you had you would have realized I am talking about early 1930's Germany for the most part. Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today. Way before Hitler and before the National Socialist party was anything but an outsider. You could easily have the conversation and compare it to ANY fascist state that used to be a democracy and closed in on itself; Italy in the 20's, Russia in the 30's, East Germany in the 50's etc.
Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution.
But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather. Prescott Bush was involved in a coup attempt in the U.S. to overthrow FDR. The attempted coup was financed by the same man who financed Hitler. Congressional hearings at the time have evidence of this.
BBC Reference [bbc.co.uk]
Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about.
I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding.
PODCAST [prisonplanet.com]of a radio interview the Alex Jones show for further reference.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt that something might have slid by me but if your still rehashing the arguments about habeas corpus or the warrant-less wiretapping, that tripe has been refuted time and time again. Constitutional scholars have come to accept it as a reality that doesn't violate the constitution. IT just violates people interpretations of the constitution.
So please, let me know if there is actually something to be worried about or is this more bias
Re:Next up: A lesson on the constitution (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I didn't read Woolf's book or listen to her speech. I've heard the arguments a dozen times before. You pick a few conditions leading up to Nazi Germany, then compare them to the current administration's policies. It's sloppily researched propaganda. See here:
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1933392797/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?_encoding=UTF8&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R28W0R1KUAZR0H [amazon.com]
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy [wikipedia.org]
"Germany was a parliamentary democracy, fairly liberal and very similar to the U.S. today."
No, it was pretty friggin far from the current state of the US. For one, unemployment in Germany was at a staggeringly high 30% in 1932. It's at about 4.5% in the US currently, trending down in the last four years. I bet if you do a little more research, you could find other, rather significant, ways 1930 Germany != 2000 USA. Unless, of course, you are only looking for similarities.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3 [bls.gov]
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERunemployment.htm [schoolnet.co.uk]
"Since you mention the Constitution, there are laws being passed as we speak (already passed this year and proposed right now) that dismantle and subvert the constitution."
Laws cannot dismantle the constitution, only constitutional amendments can. Stupid laws get passed all the time, mainly to increase the power of the state over it's citizens. Welcome to 20th/21st century USA.
"But as a matter of fact, there are direct links between Hitler, Hitler's financier and Prescott Bush, our current president's grandfather."
That's nice, what does it have to do with anything?
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html [fallacyfiles.org]
More or less.
"Within a year you will hear this happen to an American blogger and many people will defend the action."
It happens all the time in all types of media. It doesn't matter as long as it's not the government suppressing speech. I can easily visit anarchist, communist, fascist, racist, theocratic, liberal, conservative, and UFO cult religion websites with impunity - where is the organized suppression of thought here? Then again, a lot of media outlets are making a heap of money skewering the Bush regime, maybe it's a conspiracy!
"Furthermore, the movement within the U.S. government has directly used tactics, imagery, phrases and ideas from fascist Germany in current times and it's directly related to the things that I'm talking about."
I'm not sure what "Movement" you are talking about, but the political tactics used by Germany have been around before Nietzsche and Machiavelli. I'm not saying it's right, but it certainly isn't a new development, or something indicating a swing toward fascism.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html [fallacyfiles.org]
(Again)
"I call Bullshit on your pompous invocation of Godwin's law and ask that you at least dig around a bit before responding."
I did dig around and found that you are even more wrong than I originally thought. I suggest you link to websites that provide data to back your arguments, not to other people making the same argument as you.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html [fallacyfiles.org]
I suggest you read Chomsky, he does some halfway decent research and uses citations, even if his conclusions are utterly wrong.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason our entire western society strives for mediocrity nowadays, being mediocre is the new black and striving to be the same as everyone else is the only way to get noticed, as
Naomi Wolf recently interviewed on DN! (Score:2)
Naomi Wolf was recently on Democracy Now! [democracynow.org] talking about "The End of America" (transcript [democracynow.org], low-bandwidth audio [archive.org], high-bandwidth audio [archive.org], low-bandwidth video [archive.org], high-bandwidth video [archive.org]).
Pwned (Score:3)
Oh, I forgot...
Whistleblower sites (Score:2)
Youtube starting to get weird (Score:2, Interesting)
Cynical title (Score:5, Funny)
That has to be the most cynical title ever given to a Slashdot article. What's next ?
Chinese Journalist Muffled by Government, Hurray!
American Civilian Tasered by Police, Yipee!
Re:Internal decision... (Score:4, Informative)
The article states that videos with gratuitous or graphic violence is against YouTube's TOS and that is why the account was suspended.
Parent
Re:Internal decision... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Internal decision... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't you think that opens up a bigger can of worms? Applying TOS to some things, and not others, regardless of truth or intent or anything else that is intangible like that seems to me to be dangerous. Apply the TOS across the board, or change the TOS. That should be the only 2 choices.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
GP is right. If we decide to draw the line between shades of gray, where should we draw it?
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, black and white rules always fail to deliver satisfactory results. There needs to be some wiggle room in the rules or you end up with the Tyranny of Rules as opposed to the Tyranny of Chaos. Normally, people live between the extremes.
Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Indeed, it is.
Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (Score:4, Insightful)
Who claimed that anything was illegal? Are we only allowed to complain about illegal things, and not allowed to discuss the ethics of legal actions?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to agree. Too often Racism is tossed out and the meaning has become so watered down that the normal reaction to most when hearing about a case is that someone is attempting to get something they don't deserve. Racism and discrimination are very serious offenses and situations. They aren't a trum
More free = more wonderful, then, right? (Score:2)
So, presumably, if the market were more free, it would be even more wonderful, right? E.g., repealing the law that prevents people from discriminatin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, on the one hand, the businessman who refused to sell to persons of a given "race" (why do we still use this word?) would lose a sale. On the other hand, the businessman down the street who did not refuse to sell to those same persons would earn a lot more. So, wh
Re: (Score:2)
And if McDonald's don't want to serve a black person they don't have to, and you can take your business elsewhere.
Discrimination on the basis of race (and some other traits) is illegal in the US. All other, unprotected, kinds of discriminations are legal, although the list of the protected ones is growing.
Actually, in McDonalds' case, they have the right to refuse service on any grounds, including once that are considered illegal in other realms such as housing and employment. You can restrict whom you sell your stuff too all you want though.
Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (Score:2)
Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (Score:2, Insightful)