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."
I guess this means no more... (Score:1, Interesting)
I guess this means no more pro-life, but lets shoot the abortionist type videos
Next up, censoring "backup tools" (Score:5, Interesting)
See how long it takes for them to censor videos on howto run homebrew tools on Wii/Xbox/PS/DS/Pandora...
Christian terrorists? (Score:1, Interesting)
Yeah, right... I wonder if they are going to ban christian terrorist videos - bombing family planning clinics, killing doctors, gruesome abortion footage, etc.
Who makes the determination of "extremist"? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
So who makes the determination what constitutes "extremist"? Would this guy [youtube.com] be an extremist because he stands up for what he believes in while fighting what he believes are the US' illegal search and seizures on US soil?
I'm sure the government thinks he's an extremist -- will Google?
Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:0, Interesting)
"I think he really cares"
liquidpele, you are a fucking piece of garbage.
The number of just pure fucked in the head shits like you out in the world is too fucking depressing.
The scumbag Lieberman is hijacking US media to further the nuclear armed Israel war against the Arab and Muslim world you fuck.
Wait a minute (Score:2, Interesting)
They banned a video that was disclaiming the scientology religion to be a fraud,
now they are banning videos that help people train for their religion....sort of.
I hope they ban all religious based videos including scientology videos trying to
reach out to new members.
Fair is fair , no?
Military Videos? (Score:2, Interesting)
Does this mean that the multitude of videos posted by/for/about the US military, considered by some parts of the world to be terrorists, will be taken down?
Why is it ok to show propaganda for the US military but not another military force? One could argue that the US military has killed far more people than "the terrorists" have.
Thats no to say that I support "the terrorists", but lets be realistic.
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, because Israel, a loyal US Ally/Satellite that has advanced US Agenda in the mideast, and contained its military operations to self defense, should be abandoned because an artificial liberation movement has become the latest leftist craze. The people in the disputed territories are in a crappy situation, which Israel HAS been attempting to negotiate a solution for. However, the Arab world's insistence on arming them to the teeth and paying them to die, plus keeping 3 generations of people in "refugee camps" instead of settling them (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, 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 fact that their aid dollars went to his corrupt regime and killing civilian Jews mattered way less than their embrace of a "freedom fighter." The fact that he also used the resources to systematically terrorize Arab Christians probably also ingratiated himself to the secular left.
The amount of land in dispute is TRIVIAL, except to Israel that is in physical danger without it. Emotional attachment aside, financial compensation to the displaced Arabs, including purchasing them land in nearby Arab nations, would have been WAY CHEAPER than the current disaster of a policy.
So keep spewing hateful ignorance, and be prepared to lose to the silent majority in two months, because you guys are irrational and crazy.
Re:Maybe a dumb question, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
> Is this really necessary?
Yes. YouTube was lousy with the stuff. You could find the stuff without much effort.
>...this just sounds kind of like a silly policy that states the obvious.
It should have been obvious, but it wasn't. This actually is a major policy change for Google. And it isn't like they had a leg to stand on, because they DO censor YouTube already. Ask anybody who has ever posted a politically incorrect video, especially one critical of the Islamic terrorists, about how open Google is. It was only a matter of somebody with enough standing to call them out on it, once Lieberman shined a light on em the rats had to run.
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Interesting)
It is funny (or not) how you can get videos removed for containing content against their tos, but if the content is actually illegally distributed, the copyright owner is the only one who can do anything about it.
There's nothing odd about this at all. Some (major) copyright holders are quite happy to see their materials on youtube as promotion, so they (effectively) authorize them by allowing them to remain. It's nobody's damn business except the copyright holder as to whether they send a takedown notice.
Re:Counter productive.... (Score:1, Interesting)
While I understand Lieberman's intent, I agree with your sentiment instead.
Not only that:
--these videos often sicken people against terrorism more so than they already were
--these videos often educate people as to how radical these nutcases are
--contrary to most thinking, a rational person who comparitively watched video of Islamic or Middle Eastern origination would see most Middle Eastern people as peaceful and recognize the terrorism videos as violent extremism, likely making future understanding more approachable
--if this ever became a more local conflict to the US, knowing how a terrorist was trained could be used against them
To me, it's sort of like watching Intervention or similar show, where you watch a drunk or drug addict light up and just tailspin out of control, and reaffirm to yourself never to be like them. A bunch of dumb asses swinging from monkey bars, standing around with assault rifles and hoods, is more a tool against them than the fearmongering it hopes to employ in the masses or power it might instill in potential recruits.
Time to take down those MLK videos... (Score:5, Interesting)
Time to take down those videos of MLK and his agitators espousing mass chaos and social disruption with his guerrilla warfare tactic of "civil disobedience." That's the trouble with banning terrorists or the "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" line. People/government have an annoying tendency to re-define "terrorist" and "wrong." What else can we ban? If not MLK, then what about Malcolm X? The NRA? The National Organization of Women for their support of mass-murder, err I mean abortion?
I'd rather put up with a million KKK or terrorist videos just to make sure the next MLK, Ghandi, or societal conscience can be heard. Isn't that the real point behind the Freedom of Speech?
Good. (Score:3, Interesting)
I realise saying good to censorship is often seen as taboo on Slashdot, but I do not think this is about whether YouTube should or shouldn't censor anymore, that decision was made long ago so I don't think this is a question of whether to censor or not to censor anymore.
I say good because as the decision to censor YouTube has long been set in stone it's also long been clear that there is a horrific bias in the censorship there. Pro-scientology propaganda is allowed but anti-scientology propaganda regularly gets removed. Pro-islamic extremism propaganda has long been allowed yet any anti-Islamic propaganda has often been removed.
I must make this clear, I absolutely don't advocate anti-Islamic propaganda because I think it only serves to increase hatred between factions and incite the whole situation but what I did think utterly stank is that anti-Western propaganda was allowed to flourish whilst the alternate and opposing extreme, anti-Islamic propaganda was removed as offence. I find it worrying that the burning of a Koran has up until now been classified by YouTube as more offensive than the sniping in the head of a US soldier.
This is at least a good first step towards sanity, if YouTube can balance it's pro-Scientology slant by reinstating anti-Scientology videos or outright removing pro and anti-Scientology videos then the service will be a lot more respectable.
It's still not ideal of course because as this was pushed through by a screaming politician it's still all about who shouts the loudest. At least both sides are shouting loud enough for YouTube to impose an equal policy on the matter now though on this issue at least.
Re:Lieberman The US Traitor (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Interesting)
Today, it's Nazi paraphernalia... tomorrow, well, who gets to decide? Whoever is in charge? Because frankly that's a bit scary - though maybe just to me as an American because extremists often have a lot of pull in our politics (though thankfully not so much this election cycle).
I think that points to a trait that is strongly American - distrust of government, no matter who's in power. From what I've heard, other nations don't suffer from this as much. It's possibly one of the reasons why our politics go so horribly wrong - because the voter base as a whole is schizophrenic. :)
Not that I disagree with your distrust in authority, but I think other countries may have a little less of that paranoia.
Re:Boo Hoo (Score:3, Interesting)
Sites like Google and Yahoo are blurring the line between private communication channels and public channels. They are fast becoming essential tools for public communication, and the nation has a growing interest in protecting them in the same way it protects the mail, the press, the telephone, and plain old speech. There is precedent for the government forcing private communications companies to keep their channels free, and at some point we should consider doing the same for these websites.