• CreativeWoman said on May 21, 2008....

  I hadn't heard about this yet.  Sometimes I think that Lieberman just likes to get a sound bite or two now and then.  But, I suppose that is true of all politicians. 
  
  CW
  

• TinSoldier said on May 21, 2008....

  I need to read the articles later, but it is interesting vis a vis a certain other acquaintance's distaste for Google's caving in to Chinese authorities' demands. 

• D6fer said on May 21, 2008....

  Ed...does that include exxon and haliburton? ;p

• silverwhisper said on May 22, 2008....

  CW: i suppose it isn't being reported much, but yeah, i agree that lieberman's positioning for this political football.
  
  TS: i agree that's rather interesting. it will of course be completely obvious to that person that this is what happened, to that person's great disapproval i'm sure.
  
  d6: is halliburton publicly-traded? i wasn't aware of that, for some reason.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  Youtube is wrong. Its funny how youtube will take down something from say, michelle Milkin siting offensive reporting, but they keep things up from Al-Q or Hamas and other places. Funny, huh?

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  right, cuz somehow, youtube actively seeks out videos? c'mon, carm, that's loopy logic.
  
  what malkin thing are you talking about?
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  here's a couple examples ed:

  http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/21/a-message-for-youtube/

   

  http://michellemalkin.com/2007/02/12/dhimmitude-at-youtube-again/

   

  http://michellemalkin.com/2006/10/04/banned-on-youtube-3/

   

   

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  Actually ed, its a pattern of behavior.  Its pretty clear on youtube.

   

  If your going to have terms of service, and one that allow users to flag material as inappropriateness” of the video, why arent ones for jhiad and terrorism not removed? I'm sure someone has flagged them as inappropriate.

   

  Further, if your going to claim "freedom of speech", are not the cartoons also protected by the same freedom? How about videos that are critical of islam? Why are they removed? Are they not protected too?

   

   

   

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  dude, i don't exactly spend a whole lot of time on youtube, but having seen what you consider a pattern of behavior from previous discussions, suffice it to say that i'm entering into this as a skeptic.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  All I'm saying ed, is they have terms of service that removed videos as inapprorate. How terrorist ones are not "inapproriate" is beyond me.

  You cant have some videos protected as "freedome of speech" and others who are critical of the protected ones removed, and not covered under freedom of speech. It doesnt pass the smell test and you know it.

   

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  i haven't seen the terrorist videos lieberman's talking about and i'm betting you haven't, either. i think it's more than a tad hasty to judge 'em just b/c lieberman says so, you know?
  
  but i will definitely read the malkin links you provided (thanks!) b/c i need to know more about this.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  Oh I've seen one or two. I've flagged at least one, but its still there.

  I just find it ironic google is  claiming freedom of speech for terroristic ones, but will removed others as inapproriate. Are they, or are they not also covered by freedom of speech?

  Google has to pick a side, either it believes freedom of speech, or it doesnt.

   

  Follow some of the track backs on her items. She may be a bit wacky at times, but her point still stands, how is it some of her and other videos are removed and the terroristic ones are not?

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  some more reading for you ed:

   

  http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/020445.php

  http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015238.php

   

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  carm: OK, am viewing the clips.
  
  comment 1: there's no indication that the segment included is the whole of the clip as originally posted (i suspect it isn't). still dubious. can't see the other 2 linked videos.
  
  malkin is wrong that youtube is a private company: it's majority held by google, which is a publicly-held company, though, and if you think that youtube didn't ask google to step in, you haven't thought this through carefully enough IMHO.
  
  comment 2: more he said, she said.
  
  carm, i'm sorry, but without being able to see the videos in question to judge for myself, i remain unconvinced. yes, it's certainly possible there's something really screwed up here: i don't deny that.
  
  but to be honest, given the way some folks wig out at anything at all, whether extremist idiots or one stripe or another, this is to me still highly debatable, at least for now.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 23, 2008....

  The problem is ed, as I stated before: They've pulled more than a few anti-islamic/rehadist videos, critical of islam, stating offensive or objectionable items. Their next breath they say the actual terrorist hosted ones are protected by free speech. So which is it? You CANT have it both ways. The atheist who could post up anti-christian ones with narely a peep, but the moment he turns to islam they get pulled. Somethings up.

• silverwhisper said on May 23, 2008....

  you aren't paying attention, carm: you're accepting malkin's view of things at face value without seeing the youtube clips for yourself: if you had, you would have said so already.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 24, 2008....

  No ed, YOU arent paying attention. Lets go back to the article in question: "refusing to remove some videos hosted on youtube US senator joe lieberman requested they take down by terrorists, citing free speech" Again, I reiterate: If your going to claim free speech, then you need to explain why videos critical of islam keep getting yanked, because are they not protected by free speech too? You cant claim offense on one hand, and free speech on the other.

• silverwhisper said on May 24, 2008....

  bzzt! thank you for playing, but the correct response was "you're right ed, i haven't seen the clips for myself either and instead of doing that, i'm taking malkin's view as fact instead of seeing for myself whether or not her take has any bearing on reality".
  
  i'm fairly certain videos get yanked all the time on youtube, carm: someone shows up with the mod stick and removes the porn that keeps getting posted.
  
  for malkin's charges to have any bearing whatsoever--and let's remember it's frigging michelle malkin we're talking about here--you'd have to see the clips in question.
  
  look at one of the last links you posted: if enough users say "hey, this is a problem" something goes away, end of discussion. you get enough users with a particular agenda and poof, there go the clips.
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 24, 2008....

  Did or did you not remember I said I saw one or two?

   

  Bzzt yourself, thanks for playing.

   

• silverwhisper said on May 25, 2008....

  carm, you said you saw one or two. how many clips are there on youtube? literally millions, right?
  
  from a statistically irrelevant sampling pool, you want to try to make some kind of point about google having a pro-terrorism agenda? c'mon, that's loopy, carm.
  
  [hands carm some parting gifts]
  
  ed

• carmachu said on May 25, 2008....

  The facts fit ed, no matter how often you try and ofuscate. Or, perhaps, the islamic folks are quicker on the abuse button.

  Either way you slice it, terroristic type videos stay alot longer, or not banned at all, while the ones critical of islam are removed very quickly.

   

  Those are the facts ed. Whether you watch the videos or not is irrelevant. Kinda like you mom. :D

   

• silverwhisper said on May 28, 2008....

  i think that when you suggest the islamic folks are quicker on the abuse button you're a whole lot closer to the likely truth. and again, you're looking at a very small sampling size and extrapolating well beyond what would would seem appropriate to any observer.
  
  and let's not get started on the YM jokes, at least here. :p
  
  ed

Comment on "sorry senator lieberman but the videos stay"

Currently tagged	youtube google joe lieberman terrorism terrorists (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment