How far can censorship goes ?

#1 Edited by churdo (169 posts) -

In previous months, I have seen many cases of censorship on YouTube and a few other internet domains. Personally, I think that is going too far and our freedom is being threatened. Are we losing internet neutrality?

The most recent example of this problem that I am aware of was this simple and short video posted to YouTube. It was a campaign against the ties between Video, Shell and Lego. YouTube already removed it three times.

#2 Posted by playmynutz (5981 posts) -

Churdo no se escribe 'goes' o 'months' something about verbs yeah the internet is being politically corrected guess censorship is for the greater good of humanity

#3 Posted by MrGeezer (56098 posts) -

@churdo said:

Last months i have seen many cases of censorship in youtube and few others internet domains. Personally, i think it is going too far and our freedom is being threaten. Are we losing the internet neutrality ?

The last example of this problem happened with a simple and short video posted in youtube. It was a campaing against the ties between Video about Shell and Lego, youtube removed it three times already.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with censorship. Secondly, there is nothing inherently illegal about censorship.

So, first I'd like to see you establish that the censorship in question is illegal. If you fail to establish that it's illegal, then I'd like to see you establish that it's wrong. More specifically, why is Youtube obligated to allow content that they may find objectionable, even if there are no legal grounds for them to not be able to censor that content?

#4 Posted by yixingtpot (1373 posts) -

lol I've known there is no freedom in general and absolutely none on the internet for the last 13 years. When I used to post my honest 'free' opinion on tech sites, news sites I'd get censored period... the internet has always been controlled by corporations and the government, end of story. So called net neutrality never existed, so when the Supreme Court tossed out net neutrality recently, it went unnoticed... nobody on 'the news' in the US or around the 'free world' mentioned it at all. It's a joke, it never existed so what they tossed out was never in effect in the real world, net neutrality never existed. We are living in the giant Truman Show and we are all the pathetic slaves to the construct of never ending brainwashing and propaganda.

Obama allowed net neutrality to be tossed out of the Supreme Court without a fight, he signed the Monsanto protection bills, signed off on The Patriot Act and DNAA, in reality we have lost all freedoms, we are slaves to the system in blatant in our face laws.

I've personally be banned from almost every site on this planet just for stating simple, basic opinions on reality... this site Gamespot typically bans me, deletes my posts... then eventually un-bans me after whatever period of time, that's why I randomly come and go form this site. There is no freedom in the US or England, if you state undesired truths, or alternate scenario to their agendas, then you get banned, silenced, deleted etc.

#5 Posted by br0kenrabbit (12820 posts) -

So called net neutrality never existed

I don't think you have any idea what 'net neutrality' actually is.

#6 Edited by ad1x2 (5500 posts) -

Censorship is at the discretion of the website. Youtube can remove videos that show nudity and other material they deem offensive because it is their right as a private business. The U.S. government isn't forcing them to remove the material. Youtube has even hosted videos that contained stolen classified material and they wasn't taken down because they didn't violate Youtube's TOU.

So if you want to blame someone blame the company censoring the content, not the government as a whole. Keep in mind that Youtube is going to take down videos that violate copyrights not because they are assholes or like to censor but because they don't want to be sued.

If you live in some place like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia then yes, you can blame the government but Google is still a U.S. company and doesn't get censored domestically. If you want to see censorship a lot of Arab nations that didn't already block Youtube blocked it outright after the Innocence of Muslims video came out and some of them still have it blocked.

I remember it well because I was in Afghanistan when the video blew up and we lost access to Youtube through our Afghan internet connections a few days later for a few months (we could still get it via VPN or through official U.S. government connections that didn't already block Youtube to save bandwidth).

#7 Edited by lamprey263 (23089 posts) -

Thread seems misleading, was it simply to make us watch that video? Because that was a pretty awesome video, and it deserves its own thread.

#8 Posted by killerfist (19812 posts) -

You throw your rights out of the window while signing up for youtube (or any other site).

#9 Posted by airshocker (28981 posts) -

The only rights you have on a website are the ones they give you.

#10 Posted by jasean79 (2356 posts) -

The only rights you have on a website are the ones they give you.

Which are always laid out in the 'Terms of Agreement' which most people fail to read and just "agree" to.

#11 Posted by thegerg (14828 posts) -

A private organization choosing not to host a video on their website is not censorship.

#12 Posted by toast_burner (21424 posts) -

Freedom of speech doesn't apply to private property. If you're in my house and I don't like what you say, it's well within my rights to tell you to get out.

#13 Edited by churdo (169 posts) -
@MrGeezer said:

@churdo said:

Last months i have seen many cases of censorship in youtube and few others internet domains. Personally, i think it is going too far and our freedom is being threaten. Are we losing the internet neutrality ?

The last example of this problem happened with a simple and short video posted in youtube. It was a campaing against the ties between Video about Shell and Lego, youtube removed it three times already.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with censorship. Secondly, there is nothing inherently illegal about censorship.

So, first I'd like to see you establish that the censorship in question is illegal. If you fail to establish that it's illegal, then I'd like to see you establish that it's wrong. More specifically, why is Youtube obligated to allow content that they may find objectionable, even if there are no legal grounds for them to not be able to censor that content?

Then youtube should remove erotic content and some forms of apology.

@playmynutz said:

Churdo no se escribe 'goes' o 'months' something about verbs yeah the internet is being politically corrected guess censorship is for the greater good of humanity

My home language has latin roots, i am compelled to commit some mistakes. Thanks for the notes.

#14 Posted by churdo (169 posts) -

@thegerg said:

A private organization choosing not to host a video on their website is not censorship.

To me sounds abusive when big companies and people use their power and money to control society mind and tendence on their own behalf. It is an attempt to limit our freedom, like what is happening recently, when they try to kill the internet neutrality.

The abusive use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) - that besides being bad for the environment due the premature disposal of mobile devices, serverly hamper third-party software - many companies are doing that, slowly we are loosing our freedom - and paying the price.

#15 Edited by AutoPilotOn (8203 posts) -

@jasean79: that reminds me if the centipad South Park episode.

#16 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

Corporate censorship is indeed a bitch

#17 Posted by sonicare (53448 posts) -

I generally don't like censorship. Even if it's something offensive, is it better to stick your head in the sand and pretend these things don't exist? Why not have people speak their minds and then have a dialogue?

#18 Posted by churdo (169 posts) -

@sonicare: People would start supporting ONGs that tries to fight censorship and truly try to protect our freedom.

Free Software Foundation: Fights for free software and against DRM

http://www.fsf.org/

Defective by Design: Fight against digital rights management (DRM)

https://defectivebydesign.org/

And finally the Open Media and the FFTF that fights for internet freedom.

#19 Edited by BranKetra (48105 posts) -

Although censorship can be potentially tyrannical in practice, the modern American form of this is meant to protect the rights of others. For example, smear campaigns can be censored in the spirit of good-natured competition. Likewise, with subliminal messages being so prominent today, ad campaigns can be censored when deemed to be made in err (Link). The reason YouTube has recently had so much censorship with videos on their site is because there are many cases in which individuals who are actually unrelated to the media in those videos file a copyright claim and so they are censored for nearly half a year because that is the length of time the review process takes. i.e. Individuals are abusing their system. On GameSpot, the application of censorship is for the growth and maintaining of a healthy community. That said, there has been censorship for the wrong reasons throughout the world and there still is.

Net neutrality is not an issue of censorship, but a battle between the extremely wealthy and powerful and those who are less financially capable. That said, I suggest you research that subject instead of relying on hearsay.

#20 Posted by thegerg (14828 posts) -

@churdo said:

Then youtube should remove erotic content and some forms of apology.

Why?

#21 Edited by thegerg (14828 posts) -

@churdo said:

@thegerg said:

A private organization choosing not to host a video on their website is not censorship.

To me sounds abusive when big companies and people use their power and money to control society mind and tendence on their own behalf. It is an attempt to limit our freedom, like what is happening recently, when they try to kill the internet neutrality.

The abusive use of DRM (Digital Rights Management) - that besides being bad for the environment due the premature disposal of mobile devices, serverly hamper third-party software - many companies are doing that, slowly we are loosing our freedom - and paying the price.

None of that has any bearing on the fact that a private organization choosing not to host a video on their website is not censorship.