A six-part article on Google’s conservative censorship.
After numerous reports of videos being banned from YouTube, a Google Global Company, the need for answers became paramount. Researching the videos that currently reside on YouTube, took quite some time; they are seemingly endless.
Several weeks ago, NMATV sent out newsletters stating they had added a channel on their site for videos banned from YouTube. Gary Schneider, President of New Media Alliance, Inc., and Heritage New Media’s Partner, Inc. says the problem is even larger than NMATV, others not affiliated with his website have claimed YouTube is censoring items that adhere to the company’s guidelines for content, and have still been pulled. Google and YouTube, when questioned, give only automated responses, if any at all, citing copyright infringement, offensive content, abusive language etc, etc.
The problem is that criticizing Google can be considered suicidal.
As they are the most-used search engine on the Internet, they essentially have the power to make your site go away, and they know it. Any dissent is punishable.
Yesterday, in the YouTube series, readers responded with a myriad of answers, and surprisingly only one nasty comment. Some of you felt this was blatant censorship, while others realized YouTube is not a government entity, therefore it cannot be called censorship.
A few felt the first video should not have been banned because it did not violate YouTube’s rules of content. Yet another felt if the second video was pulled because the first was, that was two wrongs, that do not make a right. More than one pointed out the fact that Google is privately owned therefore, able to decide who and what can be included on their site. No argument there.
Check out the Google/YouTube song and dance, along with some video examples.
All we ever ask is consistency. Google/YouTube can do anything they want to enforce their own rules. All anyone could ask is that all parties be treated fairly. Is that too much to ask…?
On Friday we discussed YouTubes response to questions of censorship, and discerned that YouTube violates its own policy by promoting a video that clearly demeans persons with disabilities. YouTube also continues to violate its own guidelines by leaving “hate speech” comments on the pages of videos they have removed. By leaving the comments, they continually promote the malicious attacks of the extreme fringe who wish to verbally assault others, because of a difference in views.
Scott Rubin’s response, to the claims of censorship, unfortunately, do not hold water. Clearly, YouTube cherry picks videos according to the wishes of the community, not based on their guidelines. It remains to be seen whether anyone at YouTube or Google even view what videos have been flagged, before pulling them, the evidence says no.
I believe they have automated keyword searches. Some hit on words the monitors approve of and ones they don’t.
I don’t believe it’s objective, but that’s an opinion.
Luann Dawkins’ expose into the liberal attempt to control information via YouTube and other sites once thought of as neutral sources of information and entertainment.
Last week we discussed whether or not YouTube was censoring their website by removing conservative content-based videos. Clearly this is the case, even as YouTube claims the videos in question were removed for offensive content, or labeled hate speech. What was found is YouTube’s cherry picking, using flags from viewers as their only evidence of noncompliance, and pulling videos without serious investigation by their company. The videos flagged were very similar to the videos featured in part one and two of this series of articles, yet these videos remain on YouTube to this day.
Gary Schneider, President of New Media Alliance, Inc., and Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. believes the censorship doesn’t end with Google or YouTube. Social networking sites, like Newsvine (owned by MSNBC) has also pulled conservative content video citing self promotion, spam, pornography and sponsorship of political views, as justification for censorship.
In Part Five of Luann Dawkins’ series, it takes a rather personal turn.
Bob Parks, of Black and Right and NMATV, added a video to his channel on YouTube, depicting the 2005 brutal beheading of U.S. construction worker Jack Hensley, by Islamic Terrorists in Iraq. This video was removed within 20 minutes by “community” flagging and YouTube citing, “content violations.” Is it graphic? Yes, and could possibly fall under YouTubes Community Guidelines as inappropriate. Where the grey area begins is the distinction between educational and informative versus shock value.
According to YouTube’s Community Guidelines, under the heading, “Shocking and Disgusting,” it reads;
“The world is a dangerous place. Sometimes people do get hurt and it’s inevitable that these events may be documented on YouTube. However, it’s not okay to post violent or gory content that’s primarily intended to be shocking, sensational or disrespectful. If a video is particularly graphic or disturbing, it should be balanced with additional context and information. For instance, including a clip from a slaughter house in a video on factory farming may be appropriate. However, stringing together unrelated and gruesome clips of animals being slaughtered in a video may be considered gratuitous if its purpose is to shock rather than illustrate.”
YouTube clearly violates its own policy by removing the video, which is extremely graphic and disturbing, but is also “balanced with additional context and information.” While they are free to decide what to allow or remove, they should not mislead the “community,” into thinking they have joined a site where all views, opinions, and ideals are welcome.
My point was to counter the then-liberal assertion that the Iraqi insurgents weren’t terrorists, but “freedom fighters” engaged with imperial occupiers, granted George Washington-like status. If memories of my grade school experience serve, George Washington didn’t behead captured civilians.
The Iraqi insurgents did.
As the video inserted aired publicly all over the Islamic world, it’s not like it was shock. It was news for Americans, shielded by an anti-war, liberal media that wanted to perpetuate the insurgents’ victim status.
I attempted to offer “balance”.