-By Luann Dawkins of the Birmingham Community Examiner
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. At first glance viewers would assume the prevalent theme is one of unity, especially on a site where anyone can join and add their own view. It becomes apparent very quickly, this is not the case, if that view is of a conservative nature. Granted, some remain with a definite bend to the right, but for a conservative looking through the glass that is You Tube, the majority of this glass house only contains left turning halls.
In the article Media mules pull Obama, a video was included by an admittedly conservative videographer named Zo. This video was obtained and used with permission from New Media Alliance Television (NMA TV). Several weeks ago, NMA TV sent out newsletters stating they had added a channel on their site for video’s banned from You Tube. Gary Schneider, President of New Media Alliance, Inc., and Heritage New Media Partners, Inc. says the problem is even larger than NMA TV, 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.
In order to fully examine these claims, and allow readers of this article time to make their own determinations, this will be a six-part series. Today we will examine the first video mentioned, and a similar video, albeit from the opposing side. The first video, Gay Marriage, by Zo, was banned from YouTube. The second video, Gay Rights Woke Up This Morning, by cjarvis, is a current YouTube video, still playing today.
Questions to readers,
- Do you see anything violent, malicious, insulting or inflammatory about the first video?
- Do you see anything violent, malicious, insulting, or inflammatory about the second video?
- Should either video be banned?
- If the anti video is banned, should the pro video also be banned?
- Should video sites be able to ban politically driven opinion content videos?
- Is this censorship?
Sound off; please add your comments and thoughts about the banning of the first video and please answer the above questions in the comment box. Tomorrow: we will explore the answers from this article and take a look at the comments left on Zo’s site while his video was still playing, you will be stunned at the comments left after the video was pulled! We will also check out the response from Google.
WARNING; The following may not be suitable for all ages. 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. Where the argument starts, is in the answer sent by Google, when asked if they had a comment about YouTube banning conservative content videos. Scott Rubin, Google Global Communications reponds;
I can’t comment on individual videos, but I can tell you that at YouTube we believe in free speech and defend everyone’s right to express their own points of view, regardless of political orientation. But we don’t permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, and sexual orientation/gender identity).It may helpful to understand how we monitor content on the site:With 13 hours of video uploaded every minute to YouTube, we count on our community members to know our Community Guidelines and to flag content they believe violates them. We review all flagged content quickly, and if we find that a video does violate the guidelines, we remove it, on average in under an hour.
All fine and well, but it still doesn’t explain why Zo’s video was removed, there was no hate speech, nothing to demean the other group, as a matter of fact, it was quite complimentary. Which begs the question, who in the community of YouTube would flag this video? Of course, a group who doesn’t agree with the subject matter. Does YouTube not take this into consideration, when they are reviewing flagged material? In a web community as large as this there must be hundreds of viewers disagreeing with hundreds of videos. Are we to believe, that something this important is to be left up to the community at large? In which case, don’t you just need enough left thinkers to pull whatever you want pulled? In Zo’s video, there was nothing disparaging said about the LGBT community, yet the video was pulled, what was allowed to remain on his page is not only disparaging against Zo, but must be considered hate speech. Keep in mind, this column is only sharing this information to illustrate the problem with YouTubes guidelines. Examiner and Luann Dawkins, in No Way agree with, support, encourage or defend the views of the following comments. The following comments remain on Zo’s channel.The following is not suitable for children, and is highly offensive. It contains graphic language and threats of harm
The Omega Man 2Hey Banana tree climber, Uncle Tom! Your never going to be white. And your accent soundsphoney _ss hell.. Just because you’re a f_g and have a white boyfriend, isn’t going to make you accepted in the white world. And nobody’s inviting you to a fight. Nobody’s looking for your stupid paranoid _ss. But if I see you and recognize you, you bet Im going to bash your face in.So, when ever you visit Miami, Hope to see you, Im going to give you a warm welcome. So keep your cell phone close and your 911 finger ready. Thats what all you fa___ts are good at, dialing 911 and yelling for help. R3alist123I didn’t watch your silly-_ss video except for the one you did about John McCain so I didn’t know s__t about you. I am not a Liberal Conservative, democrat or Republican because they are all full of s__t. I just know a boot-licking, buck-dancing house n__a when I see one. Go f___ your mutant albino white b___h sellout!
Unfortunately, those were not the only comments, and they stand to this day. The question remains, why would YouTube deem the video as hate speech, but leave these horrible comments for anyone to view? Do the people commenting not have to adhere to the same community guidelines as the videographer? It seems this company picks and chooses at will. And only a few must abide by their guidelines. The following video is an example of what is considered allowable content. WARNING; this video is sexual in nature, very graphic, and offensive. It is not suitable for children, (it’s really not suitable for adults either.) Sound Off:
- Why is this video still playing on YouTube?
- Should the comments of a removed video also be removed?
- Should YouTube profess they are defenders of free speech?
- Should YouTube spend more time looking at the reasoning behind videos being flagged before banning?
Monday we will examine the answers for this 2nd installment, and look at videos by Bob Parks with NMA TV and Black and Right, and by Gary Schneider of NMA TV, both of which were banned by YouTube. We will also breakdown the above video about Sarah Palin, and why this is allowed to be on YouTube at all.
It’s called the liberal standard: Do as I say and not as I do. For every viewpoint there is a counterpoint, however unlike conservatives who allow others to have their own viewpoint, liberals can not tolerate any view other than their own. If they can’t change your view, then they smother it so no one else will entertain or consider your view as an alternative to theirs. The practical effect of this is make the liberal view the mainstream view. We know that when the liberal view is forced to compete with the conservative view, they come up lacking. Why is that? Because our views are based on the preponderance of facts (reality) whereas the liberal view is based upon the agenda. Liberalism is about the selling of an (utopian) idea. Utopia doesn’t exist…
Picture this, a salesman is pitching his product or service to a potential customer. A good salespitch paints a rosy picture of how much better off you are by using this product or service. Then a third party who has no intention of purchasing from the salesman starts poking holes in the sales presentation with inconvenient questions and observations that broadens the view of the potential customer. Is the potential customer more or less likely to buy from the salesman if this third party continues in their efforts? It will be less likely. The salesman promptly has the third party escorted out of the store so he can continue his presentation.
With this insight you understand why liberals hate Capitalism – because the core of Capitalism is competion. In the liberal worldview, just because an idea or system wins doesn’t mean it is compatible with the agenda.
What is occuring on Youtube is no different than what the MSM does. If you can’t beat the idea then pretend it doesn’t exist so you can continue to sell your agenda without opposition.