Egyptian Blogger Silenced by YouTube, Yahoo! 188
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."
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)
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Videos like this are ver
Re:Silenced? Censorship? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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, Insightful)
Of course, maybe the videos were causing them back-channel grief in Egypt or setting a dangerous example with some future strategy of theirs.
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: (Score:2)
Re:Silenced? Censorship? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
There's no TOS violation (Score:2)
You're talking bollocks.
Why it is Censorship (Score:2)
Something being censored might be censored because of a purported violation of TOS, but that is a reason for censorship, not a denial that it is occuring.
Actually, the GP is trying to change the meaning of the word censorship to something like "government censorship". Pointing out that the word has been rede
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)
Just because it's journalistic doesn't mean that it's any more appropriate for youtube. I wouldn't expect 60 minutes to be uploading Iraq war footage to youtube either. There are plenty of other video hosting groups that will host violent footage, use one of those.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
1) The infringement of free speech on the internet goes against a moral consensus among internet denizens that absolute free speech is the way to go - this holds even in most cases where that speech is illegal in the US, and PARTICULARLY when it is illegal elsewhere but not in the US.
2) Youtube was looked upon, was promoted, as a community, a place where people can communicate face to face or camera to camera in public free of restrictions traditionally imposed on publishing, whether legal, log
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Larry and Sergey own a majority of the voting shares. A common stockholder, or any stockholder, will never have a say in the direction of the company. Larry and Sergey even wrote a "poison pill" into Google's incorporation articles to make sure that they always have a majority vote.
GOOG stockholders are, in essence, donating equity. GOOG stockholders just hope that Larry and Sergey don't screw up because t
Re: (Score:2)
Well companies care about their reputation, because being thought of as evil can have a negative impact on business.
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.
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: (Score:2)
Any other case it would be called a "seizure" (similar to seizures of money that take place on a regular basis in the "war on drugs", permanently and without trial) but several high-and-mighty pedants would explode with fury should one suggest that.
No, no. Asset forfeiture is not a "seizure" of property at all. It's merely an arrest of inanimate objects suspected of involvement in a crime. So it has nothing to do with property rights at all, which is how it passes muster with the SCOTUS [cornell.edu]. No habeas corpus issues, either, because you can put up a bond for the arrested items to get a hearing demonstrating that the property (err... I mean assets) are innocent of any wrong-doing.
So, yea, interpretation is the key. But if you use the right words -
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Godwin's Law is bullshit. If one picks comparable attributes it is perfectly reasonable to compare people and governments to Hitler and the Nazi movement. For example, Hitler and JFK were both similar in that they projected images for health and virility, but in reality they were both sickly and not really the "ladies' men" they made themselves out to be. Perfectly legitimate comparison right there.
The fallacy YOU'RE engaging in is: "Any comparison of right-wing American political leaders to Hitler, Nazis,
Re: (Score:2)
What rhetorical purpose does comparing 1930s Nazi Germany with the USA in 2000 fulfill? You can find similarities between any two random civilizations, unless you are comparing very specific societal effects, making generalizations are useless beyond throwing firebombs into a conversation.
"The fallacy YOU'RE engaging in is: "Any comparison of right-wing
Re: (Score:2)
he isn't significantly worse than some others we have had.
He is certainly worse than any other President in living memory, easily worse than Nixon.
Are you for real?
http://hnn.us/articles/5331.html [hnn.us]
Are you for real in posting such drivel? Nixon was well know for his racist views. And even if Nixon was the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, it wouldn't change the fact that conservatives and the Republican party have fully embraced the white power crowd, many of whom were formerly Democrats.
Sabia seems to fall into the "camp" (made up exclusively of white Republicans) that believes that blacks were harmed by the
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: (Score:2)
And besides, if they start properly formatting story titles, next people will demand they properly format the summary itself... it's a slippery slope.
Yahoo?!?! (Score:2)
What is missing in the summary is that Google owns YouTube. But the Google fanboys here would not want admit that the Almighty Google is fallible.
Please provide proof of Yahoo's complicity, or fix the summary and the headline.
How was Yahoo! involved? (Score:2)
The article's title is "YouTube suspends Egyptian blog activist's account". YouTube is not affiliated with Yahoo!.
Yahoo is not even mentioned in the article body? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Yahoo! Connection (Score:2, Informative)
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/7184 [foreignpolicy.com]
Yahoo! claimed that he was using his email accounts for spamming, so they shut him down.
Egypt ist great (Score:2)
Btw. both countries are really nice tourism spots, so please don't let this all deter you from seeing the pyramids (and tell them you are from Canada, because the whole Iraq thing hasn't gone down t
Google, Yahoo not the right site (Score:2)
This kind of video needs to be (1) widely circulated and archived, and (2) put in the context of human rights ef
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.
Re:Internal decision... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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: (Score:2)
There is plenty of room outside the gray areas.
Re:It's too bad YouTube and Yahoo are the only opt (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
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
Re: (Score:2)
I bet if we complain about people complaining about people complaining about complainers, we would not only get confused but also come full circle and end up complaining about what they were complaining about in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
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
It sounds good (Score:2)
Unless you're familiar with history. :)
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not." What I'm saying is that your argument sounds reasonable, but does not stand up to what has actually happened in such situations.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm not American, so it's true that I'm not all that familiar with the history of racial relations in the US. But I remember that, from what I read on the subject, many of the problems were more related to the racism of political authorities than to the silliness o
Again, history teaches us otherwise (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My knowledge of history tells me, people, who would deal with people, whom their neighbors considered "undesirable" were punished by boycotts and worse. The market was not free of such forces...
The freer the market the better.
Interesting definition of free (Score:2)
So, would you create a law to prohibit boycotts in an effort to create a freer market? I don't think we're working from the same set of definitions. A free market is exactly one where boycotts are allowed. I challenge you to find a single libertarian who would argue for creating l
Re: (Score:2)
I guess, I did not emphasize the "and worse" part enough for you to notice. Yes, boycotts are fine. Smashing the store's windows and lynching the proprietor is not — and that was what kept people from selling to "undesirables".
Unless, of course, the proprietors were bigots themselves. Unfortunately, the law would not address this idiocy anyway...
Most propietors were bigots--we're not free yet (Score:2)
Most proprietors were bigots (although they wouldn't have considered themselves bigots at the time), and smashing store windows and lynching the proprietor wa
Re: (Score:2)
And this (non-violent) system was worse than the current one because?..
And? Are you going to prohibit people from moving between neighborhoods as they see fit, just as your predecessors prohibited people fr
Market-based solutions and well-placed regulations (Score:2)
Because blacks were made to feel inferior, they were denied jobs based off their race (presumably if you want to allow people to choose who they sell to depending on race, you also want to allow people to choose who they buy from depending on race), and vicious cycles wer
Re:Market-based solutions and well-placed regulati (Score:2)
No, your presumption is wrong. For a transaction to be non-coercive it must be voluntary for both sides. Just as the sellers shouldn't be allowed to force (would be) customers to buy, the buyers can not force the sellers to sell.
(Unfortunately, in addition to the cases of bigoted seller/black buyer, the government's clumsy attempts to repair the
Ralph Waldo Emerson (Score:2)
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Consistency for the sake of consistency is ridiculous. There are places for it, of course, and barring reasons not to be consistent one should strive to be consistent, but it should be one of the
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, thanks for accepting, that your stance is, in fact, self-inconsistent. For Emerson's words to apply (whatever that's worth), however, you need to demonstrate, that the consistency I insist on is "foolish"...
Not "would be", but "could be". Perhaps, my sentence was too convoluted for this point to be clear, but I'm glad you derived it from the rest of my arguments anyway.
Theory and practice (Score:2)
Actually, I did no such thing. I merely stated that consistency for the sake of consistency is counter-productive. I don't find advocating two different solutions for two different problems to be inconsistent. I find it to be wise. Using the same tool for every problem might be consistent, but it's hardly wise. You might find my solutions to be inconsistent, but I suspect that's because you don't recognize the differences
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, that this is your opinion, but I disagree with it. I don't think, the problems are different at all — there are simply fewer business-owners than house-owners, and so businesses are easier to coerce.
And the negative impact would be less than that of any attempts to force the human nature "by decree". But we are back to "practi
Different problems, different tools (Score:2)
If that were the only difference, that would be reason enough to use a different tool. If you only had to screw in one screw, you might use a manual screwdriver. If you had to screw in hundreds of screws, you might use an electric screwdriver. That would not make you inconsistent. However, there is also the difference that one is dealing with you already sell
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it would be a wonderful idea. Not even because it would make market freer, but simply because it would restore a very basic freedom of not dealing with someone you don't like — even if your dislike is based on some foolish superstition or bigotry.
I'm willing to accept these limitations on freedom because a) they don't affect neither me pe
Not such a wonderful idea (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such right. There is no right to marry anyone you want to either — both parties' participation must be voluntary.
Just as nobody is legally obligated to befriend people of any particular race, nobody ought to be forced to sell stuff or provide service to them.
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)
Re: (Score:2)