Thunderf00t: YouTube Has Started Banning Religiously Offensive Videos

Spread it before it gets removed by YouTube.

YouTube needs to learn that not everyone has a moral right to be offended by just anything and make their policies accordingly.

H/T: Al Stefanelli

Your Thoughts?

___________________

In the comments, TomeWyrm offers helpful advice:

If you’d like to download it, you can use the bookmarklet and instructions on this page:
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/12822/download-youtube-videos-the-easy-way/

You can also use many browser plugins, and free websites such as linkyoutube and saveyoutube

 

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • TomeWyrm

    If you’d like to download it, you can use the bookmarklet and instructions on this page:
    http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/12822/download-youtube-videos-the-easy-way/

    You can also use many browser plugins, and free websites such as linkyoutube and saveyoutube

  • http://www.facebook.com/bjornskov renebjornskov

    It has nothing to do with morals, it is simply in the economic interest of You Tube not to have controversial material on the site.

    • http://blogingproject.blogspot.com/ We Are Ing

      Youtube gets money form ads right?

      If you’re paid for eye balls than taking down controversy is the worst thing you could do.

    • Ace of Sevens

      Not necessarily. A lot of advertisers are wary about what content they get associated with. This is why a lot of shows can only make it on HBO, for instance.

    • RickRay

      Controversial to one person is normal, free speech to someone else! Where do you draw the line? If you ban one person’s idea, you have to ban another. Then what’s the point of YouTube in the first place. The internet is the only place we get to say our opinion and not have to worry about someone coming to shoot you. Or is that what you want, a police state?

  • Buffy

    Once again the religious are getting special privileges.

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      Nice to see you, Buffy. It’s been a while!

    • RickRay

      Yes, Buffy, you are correct! The religious think they’re a god’s gift to the earth.(I’m still trying to figure out which of the thousands of gods is the right one to worship). Why anyone would want to be a slave to an imaginary being (god) whose institution does nothing but take your money and indoctrinate you with 2000 year old dogma is beyond me. But then again, what does an agnostic/atheist/freethinker/naturalist/humanist like me or you know anyway?

  • Ace of Sevens

    I wouldn’t take ThunderF00t’s word for it, especially given his tendency to make implicit death threats and play dumb while interpreting everything a Muslim says as a death threat. YouTube actually has very good free speech policies. They do have process problems where a bunch of people can flag something and get it taken down for no reason.

    • StevoR

      Gee, Aceof Sevens, its not like the Muslims don’t provide Thunderf00t & others with enough material supporting the idea that they’ll fly into insane rages and start issuing death threats at the drop of a cartoon. Oh wait ..

      If Muslims don’t want to be portayed as bloodthirsty, excessivley violent crazies maybe its time they, well, stopped behaving like it?

      (If you really don’t understand I suggest you research the Danish Cartoon issue, the Salman Rushdie fatwah, or heck, just watch the nightly news.)

    • John Morales

      YouTube actually has very good free speech policies. They do have process problems where a bunch of people can flag something and get it taken down for no reason.

      Um.

      (I’m trying very, very hard not to wax sarcastic, here)

    • Ace of Sevens

      I think you have to distinguish between policy and process. How else can you explain YouTube telling Joe Lieberman to get bent when he tries to get alleged terrorist videos taken down, but a few hundred fans of a very popular channel can flag a moderately popular channel into oblivion? This isn’t YouTube instituting some new draconian policy at the behest of the Muslims ThunderF00t always imagines camped outside his house: It’s the same problem they’ve had for years: YouTube’s attempts to keep costs down lead to ways to game the system and get videos removed that don’t violate any policies.

    • John Morales

      I think you have to distinguish between policy and process.

      <sigh>

      Yeah, because that’s such a difficult and subtle distinction, thank you oh so much for informing us about it!

      (IOW: heed what they say, not what they do)

    • Ace of Sevens

      Also, I’d point out this policy says nothing about criticizing or offending religion, only demeaning people based or their religion, which isn’t the same thing. There are some questions as to how it will be enforced, but given their previous enforcement of other parts of the hate speech clause, they’ll probably err way on the side of free speech. Like it or not, Google doesn’t want YouTube to be a venue for everything that’s legal, or they’d allow porn, for instance. They also don’t want the KKK setting up shop there, because who wants that brand association? There are plenty of other solutions for streaming video.

    • Ace of Sevens

      Yeah, because that’s such a difficult and subtle distinction, thank you oh so much for informing us about it!

      (IOW: heed what they say, not what they do)

      How about heed what they do when they make conscious decisions over their automated processed when you are trying to determine intent.

    • John Morales

      There are plenty of other solutions for streaming video.

      There are plenty of other religions for the monotheists, too, so why rail at Catholics?

      (Youtube apologist is apologetic, such a surprise!)

    • John Morales

      How about heed what they do when they make conscious decisions over their automated processed when you are trying to determine intent.

      May I introduce you to the concept of plausible deniability>

    • Ace of Sevens

      Here’s how this has generally been enforced: This is just a new clause on a policy which has long banned demeaning people based on race, sex and a couple other things. David Duke has an official channel.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/drdduke

      This is a good demonstration of where they (don’t) draw the line. Unless you want to post stuff that borders on incitement, I don’t see this affecting you.

    • Ace of Sevens

      If they were really concerned about plausible deniability, they wouldn’t be very publicly telling a senator to fuck off when he accused them of hosting videos promoting terrorism, then quietly removing videos because a few dozen people got their feelings hurt.

    • John Morales

      re your sub-thread #10: which neatly brings up back to the merits of their “very good free speech policies”, as you’ve put it.

      (I hereby desist from continuing this sub-thread)

  • StevoR

    I try not to offend people – but I also firmly believe that no one has the right NOT to be offended and thereby remove other individual’s rights to freedom of expression.

    Because almost anything and everything is offensive to somebody and those with the thinnest skins and most vigourous complainers should NOT be those controlling what everyone else can say.

    I fully agree with Voltaire’s prinicple (which apparently he didn’t directly say) that : “I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.

    Youtube is on a dangerous slippery slope indeed here. Don’t like a clip – fine, say so and say why, argue against it with better arguments of your own but don’t you dare prevent other people from having their say!

    Oh & note that writing a book, drawing a cartoon, sending a tweet, burning a book is NOT an excuse for murder and violent rioting and death threats. Not ever. Regardless of who “holy” a book or how “sacred” a “prophet” may be to you.

  • John Morales

    What can I say?

    From my perspective, any religious video is a religiously offensive video.

    (But then, we the irreligious atheists* traditionally don’t merit appeasement)

    * We’re heathens, impious, pagans, godless, wicked, profane and disrespectful unbelievers.

    (Yet God forbid we use the term ‘goddist’, given its pejorative connotations!)

    • http://freethoughtblogs.com/camelswithhammers Daniel Fincke

      hahahaha feeling punchy tonight, John?

    • John Morales

      I guess my bitterness shows.

      (It’s OK, I know full well fairness is a human conceit)

    • http://CamelswithHammers Babby660

      Yeah, who’s gonna stand up for atheists (besides Dawkins & Dillahunty, that is)? I guess I’m a little late getting to this site, since most of these comments seem to be dating from February.

  • furtivezoog

    I mirrored the videos (as Thunderf00t requested) and Tweeted about it–For me, YouTube videos #1-5 and tweets #1-5 (#2-6 if you count a re-tweet).

    A curious thing: the counter is ‘stuck’ at 318 views even though there are, at this moment, 5846 likes, 54 dislikes, and 2886 comments (and about 5 pages of video responses). Part of an impending YouTube censorship action?

    • Ace of Sevens

      No, this is normal. The views counter is updated daily and the other counters are updated when you load the page.

  • peterh

    “No one has the right not to be offended.” – John Cleese

    • lordshipmayhem

      Apparently that’s a concept that offends some people.

    • John Morales

      It’s also particularly poorly expressed.

      1. “No one has the right not to be offended.”

      2. “No one has the right to not be offended.”

      (They mean entirely different things!)

  • http://www.artmeetsadventure.com Lynna, OM

    One of the worst outcomes to note here is that many of Thunderfoot’s videos have been banned. It’s not just one video here and there.

  • http://www.cheatshacksfreedownload.com/?s=castleville freedownloadcheats

    We’re a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with valuable information to work on. You have performed a formidable task and our whole community will be grateful to you.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X