YouTube Bans Terrorist Training Videos 391
Virtual_Raider sends in an Australian news story that begins "Terrorist training videos will be banned from appearing on YouTube, under revised new guidelines being implemented by the popular video-sharing site. The Google-owned portal will ban footage that advertises terrorism or extremist causes and supporters of the change hope it will blunt al-Qaeda's strong media online campaign. The move comes after pressure... from Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman... [T]he new YouTube guidelines includes bans on videos that incite others to commit violent acts, videos on how to make bombs, and footage of sniper attacks."
Counter productive.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This just adds a bit of legitimacy to their cause. Now they can rightfully claim that they are being persecuted and censored. This is the same as what happens in parts of Europe where all things related to Nazis and Hilter are banned.
It just drives it underground and gives it more street cred. If these things are out in the open it is a lot easier to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is.
What ever the problem, censorship is almost never the answer.
How about no more Army videos, then? (Score:1, Insightful)
If it's wrong to post videos that are propaganda for an organization that commits criminal acts of war, then shouldn't they ban videos of Army successes in Iraq?
After all, the U.S. invaded Iraq without just cause, making it an illegal war.
And... (Score:5, Insightful)
But how does youtube define "Terrorists"
Enemies of the USA? (Banning Islamic military videos)
Enemies of Islam?(Banning USA military videos)
This is called government sponsored censorship (Score:2, Insightful)
When do they start burning books?
Maybe a dumb question, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am betting no (Score:5, Insightful)
How long until Scientology abuses this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I give it a day or two before Scientology starts augmenting its fraudulent DMCA takedown notices, adding the charge that its critics are "extremists" and thus worthy of censorship.
Re:Lieberman, God sees your lies. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
Because, well, they should then also block the crap out of those extremist christian kids brainwashing videos.., and what about ETA videos? or PKK videos?
There's more extremists groups than the Al Qaeda one....
Good on Senator Joe (Score:2, Insightful)
Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of a clinic getting bombed? It was a handful of nut jobs, and they are in prison. Clinton tightened the regulations on distance from the clinic, and protests kind of faded. They have adopted less confrontational approaches.
It probably feels good to go on Slashdot and compare Christians to Al Qaeda, you could go diary on Daily Kos and get told how wonderful you are, but it would be the same BS as here.
There is zero comparison between people protesting an abortion clinic and some people going too far than an organized movement to kill civilians haphazardly to advance a political agenda.
On some level you have to realize that the "internal justification" of the anti-abortion murderers is their belief that they are preventing murder, while the Islamist Terrorists are pursuing an agenda of despotism and establishing a Caliphate military dictatorship. The former are targeting the specific people that they believe are currently in the process of taking a life (in the view of the actor), the latter are looking to kill or maim as many as possible.
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong (I'd suggest that their attacks on our troops aren't terrorism, just asymmetrical warfare, our troops are a valid military target, for that reason I'm hard pressed to classify the hit on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack since it's a military target)... they may have a goal that they believe in, but their methodology is simply evil.
Re:Counter productive.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with you and my question for those who might disagree with you is this:
How is this different from what Google did in China at the behest of the Chinese government?
"Oh w-w-w-ait! Th-th-th-that's different!"
Sorry. No, it's not.
Censorship is censorship. Just because you don't agree with something someone says doesn't make it not censorship to silence them and it doesn't make it right.
Re:If this means.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As if anyone really could make out anything useful from YouTube videos. At least useful enough to be dangerous.
But maybe they will have to ban most of the videos then that are showing how people does blow things up.
Re:Counter productive.... (Score:2, Insightful)
He sums up everything about why we should ALLOW these kinds of videos. Some savage beheading a telecommunications worker in Iraq? Allow it. Clips from Jesus Camp? Allow it.
The other side of the argument could be that it just fuels people's anger towards certain groups. Just because a Muslim man blows up a disco in Israel doesn't mean your Muslim neighbor is going to do it to you. There's many variables that have to come into play when you consider censorship.
Then again, I'm all for allowing anything and everything. I only wish they allowed Dog to continue his bounty hunter show, but allowed him to spit the racial epithets he did because it was a reality show after all. Show the real side of reality.
No More Mythbusters? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, a bomb is fuel, oxidizer, and a containment vessel. Technically, the propane tank on your barbecue grill counts as a "bomb" in the right context.
Re:Who makes the determination of "extremist"? (Score:1, Insightful)
more than half of the US population advocate bombing people.
They are extremist
When outlaw videos are outlawed... (Score:5, Insightful)
...then only outlaws will have outlaw videos.
Re:I wonder (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't forget the Earth First, ELF, PETA, and ALF videos.
And the so-called anarchists videos.
Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of Speech means freedom for everyone. Yes this includes and is not restricted to; Terrorists, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, stalkers, bomb makers, nazis and holocaust deniers.
I do not have to apologise for saying these people have a right to speak. You need to apologise for suggesting that they should not have that right.
If you want rights for some and not for others, go live in Saudi Arabia or China or Russia. But of you right rights for all the people, then you need to stand up for those rights no matter who they are taken from.
what is a "terrorist"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:1, Insightful)
You are suggesting that someone apologize for exercising his free speech rights in a post that claims everyone should have unlimited free speech rights.
Can you say irony?
Re:Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong (I'd suggest that their attacks on our troops aren't terrorism, just asymmetrical warfare, our troops are a valid military target, for that reason I'm hard pressed to classify the hit on the Pentagon as a terrorist attack since it's a military target)... they may have a goal that they believe in, but their methodology is simply evil.
Actually, yes, the terrorists are preventing a wrong, at least in their own minds.
In their minds, we, the United States, along with our allies, are occupying their Holy Lands of Jerusalem and the surrounding area. From what they believe, Israel is a puppet of the U.S. government. To some extent, that might actually be true -- we have, in fact, supplied and trained their military, and we did lobby for the creation and international recognition of Israel as an indepdendent state following World War II.
As far as these Islamic terrorists are concerned, we are enemies of their God, no different than how the abortion doctors are viewed as enemies of YOUR God.
It is all the same, if you'd sit back and look at it objectively.
Re:Good on Senator Joe (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes common sense, uncommon thought it may be, just has to prevail...
and we're still waiting...
Re:Anti Abortion "terrorism" defeated (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it... (Score:2, Insightful)
What really irks me is these (factual) videos are being censored yet on youtube there are thousands of (non factual, religious extremist)videos claiming the Earth (nay, universe) is 6,000 years old that are not being taken down.
So in conclusion we either take down all offensive videos (leaving just dramatic gopher and rambling blogs) and slowly creep towards thought police or we have to allow freedom of speech, I think that might be in a couple of European countries constitutions, oh and some union in North America
I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. I'm in Germany, where nazi things are as forbidden as it can possibly get, but I'm not aware of neo-nazis having much street cred or too many people thinking of them as freedom fighters. From the limited and flawed sample I have, it seems to me like there are more neo-nazis, white-supremacists and the like per capita in the USA where it's not forbidden.
Bear in mind that most of Europe has been fucked up hard by WW2. You yanks know WW2 as this war that happened somewhere else, you had a one or two hundred thousand soldiers total, and generally it mostly happened to somewhere else. Here it's a lot closer to home. Germany got not only to lose over 5.5 million soldiers in the war and over 1.5 million civillians in the firebombings, but got to deal with the whole Gestapo and all first hand. There are familes who've had a member or two gassed by Hitler just because they had some chronic disease when that eugenics program was tried.
Now there _are_ a few nostalgiacs about that time, and a few trolls posing as neo-nazis, but on the whole there just isn't that much reason to pine for those times. Which would kind of be required for them to have any significant amount of "street cred."
Germany largely went pacifist and socialist after the war, mostly as a result of still remembering the war and the far-right dictatorship. (Not unlike the USA went pacifist after WW1, but without the isolationism aspect.)
Other countries have even less reasons to cheer for it. France has been bombed by us in one direction, and then by the Allies on the way back. I haven't done a poll there, so I might be talking out the arse, but I don't think many of them pine for those times. And forbidding nazi symbols and the like, doesn't seem to have made people pine for those times more.
Now there seems to be a signifficant amount of French nationalism, but really that's actually mis-labelled. France's "nationalism" and "right wing" aren't as much about nation or race, as about language and culture. The theme doesn't seem as much "go home if you're not white or French" as "go home if you don't freaking want to learn French." In a lot of countries that wouldn't even be considered "nationalism" or "right wing", but rather the baseline as expectations go.
Just about the only countries where racism and nationalism have made a come-back are in the former Eastern Bloc. But there it's not forbidden, so you can't blame it on that.
Finally, note that it's somewhat misleading to paint it as Europe forbidding it _all_ or that it's not allowed to talk about it in the open. We still have documentaries, books about it, and learn history in schools, ya know? So, yes, it is very much possible "to keep tabs on and to criticize it which in turn makes it more likely that people will see it for the bullshit it really is". Most of it, at least. All that's forbidden is nazi propaganda/hate-speech and, depending on the country, the sale or public display of crooked crosses and other nazi symbols.
One man's terrorist... (Score:4, Insightful)
...is another man's freedom fighter. The speed that politics moves, I wouldn't want to have to be the guy who chooses what's allowed and what's not. Who knows which groups the next president of the USA considers to be "evil terrorists" or "democracy loving freedom fighters".
Re:Next up, censoring "backup tools" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about no more Army videos, then? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Bush and Blaire administrations fraudulently misused and misrepresented intelligence in order to trick the U.S. Congress as well as the U.N. Security Council into their authorizations.
That could be legal only under definitions of "legal" that are entirely divorced from "just" and "good".
Re:Next up, censoring "backup tools" (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly not hacking, but what constitutes terrorism tomorrow? Will they start banning videos that talk about presidential candidates poorly? I mean, we can't have people inciting hateful thoughts about a candidate. That would be terrorist. What about killing animals? Joe Bob Moonshine is all proud of his deer hunting expedition and decided to post videos of it for others that might be interested. Will these fall under "sniper videos"? How about all the videos of US soldiers sniping foreigners with .50 Cal rifles from a mile away? Are those to be banned as well?
Re:Anarchists weep (Score:1, Insightful)
And the end to the Apache helicopter attacks on agents of terror? What about the US Sniper videos. It is funny the "terrorists" are not allowed to post their horribly fuzzy videos anymore. I am sure this will defeat them. The most powerful military in the world is relying on google/youtube to help defeat 50 years of meddling in other's affairs.
Free speech is simple. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't ban others speech. Speak better than them.
Censorship is an act of desperation on the part of a losing ideology... and I hardly think that's applicable here.
if i were the government (Score:3, Insightful)
i'd leave the videos up, and have google regularly feed me the ips of whomever watches them
the videos will be gotten, youtube or not
so it is far better for youtube to function as a honeypot, rather than not to have any value at all
of course 99% of viewers will be harmless curious dorks. its the datamining correlation with activity on a given ip address that is of interest for homing in on that 1%
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Next up, censoring "backup tools" (Score:2, Insightful)
Do we trust humanity with an instructional video on how to build a bomb or how to kill?
Proponents of free speech and free information begin to lose that trust when it blows up next to them. So then the bar is raised, and the next target is the bomb components. Or more directly for the sake of argument: guns.
Take away the guns because we don't trust humanity not to kill each other with them.
Then what's next? Video games and TV/movie violence- because we don't trust our children to know the difference between fantasy and reality?
So go ahead people, keep eroding the trust: Get in your car and drive to work so you can avoid that scary man on the bus. Don't take a moment to extend kindness to the less fortunate, let them build their stereotypes and become your enemy. We're digging our own graves..
So just who gets to define what terrorism means? (Score:5, Insightful)
And it seems to me that psychological terrorism could apply to an interesting range of things-- an al-Qaeda rant or an "evil empire" or veiled "all our options are on the table" rant from an American president for example.
It doesn't have anything to do with that (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter whether you're American or not. Freedom of speech is an ideological high ground, and accepted by most people to be a good thing(tm). This isn't about terrorists not having rights, it's about people not having the right to terrorize. Your freedoms stop at the point where they start to encroach on someone else's liberty.
I believe in protecting freedom of speech, but I also agree with youtube's decision to remove terrorist training videos and instructions on making bombs. No one benefits from this information being on youtube. If you want to learn these things then you should learn them from a human being, who will hopefully reject students of bad intention, and impart some morality along with the knowledge to do harm.
There's no accountability in a system such as youtube, and we need to be held accountable for distributing and using this kind of information.
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because Israel, a loyal US Ally/Satellite that has advanced US Agenda in the mideast,...
Huh? Unless the US agenda is supporting Israel, I'm not really seeing it. Certainly, if the USA agenda were to be reducing terrorist attacks on the USA then Israel is working directly against that goal.
...and contained its military operations to self defense,...
If what Israel is doing to the Palestinians is "self-defense" then what Apartheid South Africa did to black people was also "self-defense".
...should be abandoned because an artificial liberation movement has become the latest leftist craze.
How is it "artificial" or "liberation" or even "leftist"? The most common viewpoint I've seen is that Israel should not discriminate or promote segregation.
The people in the disputed territories are in a crappy situation, which Israel HAS been attempting to negotiate a solution for.
Like by continuing to drive them off their land to make new settlements?
However, the Arab world's insistence on arming them to the teeth...
Israel might qualify as "armed to the teeth". A few crude explosives and a few automatic weapons is hardly "armed to the teeth".
...and paying them to die,...
I've seen some attempts to mitigate the effects of Israel's collective punishment - but it's kind of hard to pay someone who is dead.
...plus keeping 3 generations of people in "refugee camps" instead of settling them...
The right solution is to let the refugees settle wherever they want. If they want to go home to what is now Israel then they should have that option. If they want to go elsewhere then that should be allowed too.
(roughly the same number of Jews were kicked out of Arab countries as Arabs that fled Israel during the 1948 War) like Israel settled the Jews the Arabs kicked out,...
Let's not forget the Palestinians displaced in the other wars - but, yeah, two wrongs don't make a right. Jews that fled the surrounding Middle Eastern countries should be allowed to return to those countries.
...has prevented a solution.
Most fundamentally, Israel's continued insistence on segregation and discrimination has prevented a solution.
Arafat the Egyptian embraced lefty rhetoric and style, so like Castro, became seen as a darling of the left who love dictators if they embrace "revolution."
The people I know weren't big fans of Arafat - but they wanted to discrimination and the segregation to end.
The fact that their aid dollars went to his corrupt regime and killing civilian Jews mattered way less than their embrace of a "freedom fighter."
I've known some people who've donated to Palestinian orphanages - but, now, even that tends to be illegal. On the other hand, plenty of US Zionists have donated weapons to Israeli settlers to continue to drive the Palestinians off their land. It's also worth pointing out that Israel kills roughly ten times as many non-combatants (e.g. young children) as the Palestinians.
The fact that he also used the resources to systematically terrorize Arab Christians probably also ingratiated himself to the secular left.
Certainly some Palestinians are Christian - but do you have any evidence that they were terrorized - or are you just making stuff up?
The amount of land in dispute is TRIVIAL, except to Israel that is in physical danger without it.
Given that Israel has one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, a bit of land isn't really going to make a difference. What would make a difference would be to stop the discrimination and segregation - sort of like how Apartheid South Africa has seen a lo
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to be kidding me... a utility?
Youtube is a unregulated for-profit website that depends on advertiser revenue.... what obligation do they have to carry any kind of content?
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
LOL - you funny man!
Re:Don't Worry, Israeli Terrorism Is Still Fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:1, Insightful)
You are suggesting that someone apologize for exercising his free speech rights in a post that claims everyone should have unlimited free speech rights.
Can you say irony?
I can say "irony". You wouldn't know what it means though, since there was no irony in your example.
The parent is suggesting someone apologize for what they said. He's not suggesting that slashdot should remove his post, or that he shouldn't post a reply defending his views. Free speech means people can say wtf they want, free speech doesn't mean I can't be offended by what you say and ask for an apology.
Now, you don't have to give said apology, but I'm exercising my free speech rights when I voice my opinion that you owe me one.
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US decided it needed your house for its defence, gave you some cash and told you to get out, and go live with your fellow Christians at the closest YMCA, would you consider that an acceptable offer?
If you were a squatter in someone else's house and they gave you money to leave and go live with your fellow X among the Xian lands, you would really need to be grateful they didn't just kick your ass.
Except wait, it appears you tried to fight to keep the proper owner out and got your ass kicked anyway. Too bad for you.