I don't know who this Nick guy is but by hearing this guys response proves my point about how youtube is. Youtube is run by a bunch of fucking idiots.
They did say that the song he used in the Holy Quran video was copyrighted. YouTube initially banned Nick for inappropriate content, not copyright issues. I strongly suspect that if he used no sound track at all, that matters would have ended there, i.e. Nick would have been banned. YouTube belatedly recognized the firestorm that their decision would engender and "wisely" adjusted their position to more effectively deflect criticism.
The censorship of Nick Gisburne is morally reprehensible. This type of behavior has the potential to alienate many members, transforming the current image that YouTube enjoys into something far more sinister. I believe it is in your best interest to reevaluate this decision.
This is another complaint to the banning and censorship of videos not flattering to someone's personal or group beliefs. Nick Gisbourn (Gisbourn2000) (NickGisbourn2000)was banned to posting quotes from the Qar'an. (Period). You need to adapt a policy that video posters make clear the content of their video is pro-christianity or anti-islamic(as example) then flagging is unavailable. Do you want us all to start flagging every viewpoint contrary to our own?
Ok, I do have to admit this is hypothetical. It isnt clear why Gismo got booted. Nonetheless, though I like the idea of absolute freedom of speech more than most people, I doubt YT is under obligation to provide you with it, or to interpret the TOS exclusively according to your opinion of what its terms mean.
As for kid porn being against the law, thats simply of matter legally codified censorship. I can propose doing away with all censorship in theory without worrying about minor details like that.
What has your ability to propose something or not got to do with anything? You don't get to pick where the lines are drawn. Truly illegal or harmful materials, or anything that's going to get YouTube into lawsuit trouble is perfectly understandable. Anything else is just blatant censorship.
Who gets to pick where the lines are drawn is exactly the point. That what your tirade is about, not free speech, because you support censorship. Its no excuse that kid porn is illegal, its not censored because its illegal. Its illegal because people want to censor it that much more.
In what sense do you think I support censorship? *I* am not picking any line -- the YT lawyers, TOS and community standards are picking that line because that's what is spelled out in black and white and its what I signed up for. That line does not exclude purely religious speech.
You justified censoring kid porn and racist hate speech. Which is undeniably censorship, even if not a single person in the world would bother to oppose it. Also, you agreed to the TOS, which contains limits on your freedom of speech, and does not guarantee that your interpretation of what 'spelled out in black and white' will apply.
So theres things you have problems with, and theres things muslims have problems with. And if theyre going to be members of your society, then they have as much right to lobby for censorship as you do, about what bothers them. This is what youre objecting to, not censorship per se.
Neither the constitution nor the bill of rights requires YT to provide you with freedom of speech. They require the govt to provide YT with freedom of speech, at least in the US. If you want to publish on your own, using your own equipment, you can have the same protection from GOVT interference.
And yeah Ive heard of 'tyranny of the majority' too, which is why I insist on accusing you of supporting censorship, for what you consider the justifiable cases of kid porn and racist hate speech for example. Its not because I love stuff like that.
Ok, well, you are equating kiddie porn and hate speech, with discussions of religion. If you seriously take that position (one not supported by the Law in the US), then there is nothing further that we can discuss.
Youre the one who appealed to the sanctity of your right to unbridled freedom of speech, in defiance of the 'tyranny of the majority'. I am merely pointing out that neither you, NOR THE LAW are in any such lofty moral position.
Oh, and YTs help page states: 'we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs ... intended to attack or demean a ... religion ...' Ive seen what is supposed to be Gonzos video. I suspect it can be argued to qualify.
You are not here to argue. You are here to present a twisted rationalization as if it were an argument. You intentionally bring unrelated things like hatespeech and kiddie porn in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue because you are unwilling to even remotely reference the main thesis being presented here. You can't argue with people who invoke Godwin's law as their first line of defence.
Oh theyre not unrelated. If you did support free speech for all, whether or not they rated it in your opinion, then you would be claiming for Gribley the right to post his video, regardless of what others might reasonably think of it.
But of course you do not support free speech for all (indeed, as you say, that would be ILLEGAL). You therefore concede your own speech is subject to censorship, if it is found to be 'hate speech' for example. And as Ive pointed out several times, you are not the sole arbiter of that determination.
Thats why I say your invocation of free speech is pointless, empty rhetoric, a mere show. A distraction from the fact that you are defending what can reasonably be argued to be a slur on a religion, exactly the kind of thing that you yourself have said can and ought to be censored.
Godwins law. GODWINS LAW. The Usenet joke from, what, 16 years ago? You arent even invoking it correctly. Nobodys said the 'N' word. The OTHER 'N' word. Or the 'H' word NEITHER. Godwins law. You defend yourself with a joke sir. Your whole argument is a joke. I laugh.
But ok I guess the whole argument may be academic anyhow, if hes getting booted (repeatedly!) strictly for copyright. So I guess youre maybe off the hook, sort of.
But they are quotes from the Qu'ran. So how are these slurs, demeaning, or an attack against them? The only attack here that I see is that of organized people flaging videos they disagree with.
They arent verbatim quotes, they are condensed at best, certainly presented out of context, to distort their significance, to defame a religion. Yes, I think it can be argued the video, as a whole, can be considered a slur.
"It can be argued"? That's the weakest thing I have ever heard. Here's a challenge for you: Can you find any single authoritative generally accepted english translation of the Koran anywhere? And if not, can you find any english citation of the Koran for which you cannot lob that same pathetic excuse for an argument against it?
There are several translations of the Koran available online. Comparing the video quotes to any number of them suggests very much that they are distortions of the original text, not due to any accident of translation. They are out of context in as well. Read in context, in more typical form, they present nothing near the inflammatory impression Griswolds video implies.
I really have to wonder what your problem is with this. Griswold definitely wasnt out to pay islam any compliments, and he may very well have distorted the meaning of some of the korans verses to defame it. Is it so important to you, to insult the religion of a billion people? Why dont you go to Mecca and do it personally? That would a nice exercise for you.
False question. So typical of you people. Nick's worst crime is that he took *one* of the translations, thinking that it was possible to do so without falling for this convenient trap set by the Islamists.
Actually from what Ive read Nick simply lifted the whole schmeer from some Islam bashing site on the web or other. A trap set by Islamists? Is your paranoia medicine wearing off?
Now this of course is merely the impression I have gotten from my own casual reading. Others no doubt have their own opinions. Ive already heard yours. Ive even heard that everybody has 1. Has it ever occured to you that such decisions might sometimes be made based at least in part on opinions you dont happen to agree with?
No two such translations match, and therefore none can be considered definitive. I believe that is the entire point, which you continue to actively avoid.
I dont think any translations have to match for me to be able to read them and understand what they mean. I can read just like you can, or anyone can. A point you seem remarkably unaquainted with.
I can also use a search engine (oooooh!). Which makes it easy to determine that Grimace's quotes are lifted word for word from "The Skeptic's Annotated Quran" (in the same order even), a heartwarming little bigoted collection of PARAPHRASES from a traditional translation conveniently located on the same site.
Congratulations on your interweb skillz, you coward. Now do you care to answer the question I had? Find me *ONE* single authoritative english translation of the Qu'ran that has general acceptance and which therefore demonstrates that no such trap exists?
Im sorry, are you fucking retarded? Gilbert lifted his shit directly from a collection of "ANNOTATIONS," from a religion bashing website no less, ALSO SHOWING THE TRANSLATION FROM WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. They are demonstrably not direct quotes from ANY translation, AS YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE. Yeah the Islams are out to trap you, Einstein. You and Elmer Dumbass Fudd.
So I take it the answer is no? You cannot find any generally accepted translation of the Qu'ran to english? I thought not. Now think. Do you suppose there is a reason *WHY* no such universal english translations exist?
Well i have a begining of answer to that. Of course the translation problem goes straight to the opposition of two schools of thinking within Linguistics (among others): Relativism and Positivism. You will never find an accurate enough translation of the Qu'ran because Language is contextualy embedded within culture..anyway. We ought to be careful when taking quotes from the Holy texts. But youtube and google are wrong. thx 4 posting. Bring him back NOW.
Sure you insist Gonad's slur is a reasonable critique of Islam. And youre entitled to that ridiculous opinion. But, as Ive pointed out, you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes reasonable critique, or hate speech. And in this case I wouldnt surprised if your opinion of the matter did not prevail.
This is free service theoretically supported by advertising, and in them main catering to vanity not any kind of socially relevant communication. As far as I know Youtube can delete anything they want, for any reason they want. Sure Id love to see no censorship whatsoever, thatd be great for laughs. Youre not going to complain about kid porn or the KKK propaganda right?
When you hit the flagging button, YouTube spells out specific categories of unacceptability of the content being flagged. Nick posted quotes from the Qu'ran. Which category do you think that fits into?
Which category it goes into is exactly what is being contended, by you and by muslims. A set of choice quotes from the Torah, cherry picked to defame judaism, with no commentary other than perhaps a swastika logo, would likely count as 'hate speech' in germany. The categories are not set in stone.
Since youve already conceded censorship per se is ok by you, all that remains is the debate over WHAT shall censored. You are going to exclude muslims from that debate? How exactly?
Kid porn is against the law, posting quotes from a Holy book is not.
KKK propganda...the key word for me here is propoganda.. see Posting quotes taken from a book isn't propoganda, so these points are very different.
When it comes down to freedom of speech, it should be practice however the limits that are imposed on it, are the same as the limits imposed on every action taken in society, that it should be kept within the law.
See KKK could use free speech, but once they begun practicing in ways that would break the law which we all know they would, then they could be dealt with.
And do you think the KKK could come on here and post without getting booted pretty quick from complaints, no matter how how polite they were with their white supremacist nonsense?
The YouTube flagging system has a specific category of offensiveness called "hate speech". The KKK, like anyone else, is welcome to post here, they just can't post hate speech.
Its hard to imagine any message the KKK could post about their platform, no matter how they worded it, that couldnt be classified as 'hate speech.' As perhaps Ginseng's video was, probably correctly, if the term actually means anything.
Seriously, how do you think such categories got defined? Did God write them on the back of the 10 commandements? No, they were arrived at by consensus.
And if you accept Muslims as part of your community, they have input into that consensus. Thats all there is to it.
See the thing is, youre not against censorship at all. You just dont want muslims to have anything to say about the standards by which speech will be censored. But if youre determined to have an open society, with censorship, then unless youre going to expel muslims completely, youre going to have to let them have a say about it.
Yeah I know you think the evil muslims are trying to take your free speech away. But you already threw free speech out the window, the second you decided it was ok to censor ANYTHING. Youre not the defending free speech at all. Youre just fighting over who will control what gets censored.
What I'd like to see is him repost the video without Rob D in it. The copyright infringement for using clubbed to death muddies the waters as to why he was shut down. Too many variables.
If you watched Nick's video he reads the message he received from youtube and it specifically mentions "offensive content" NOT copyright infringement, I and dozens if not hundreds of others can assure you that he has conveyed the content of that message accurately.
It maybe not as clear cut as most people think , nick accepts that he was banned before over copyrighted material, that maybe the case here as his soundtrack is copyrighted, it maybe not the content of his video that is the problem, I dont know if utube was specific in identifying why he was banned if it was just for alleged content and not for what I assume copyright then it is not justified
Yes, I feel that the flagging system here is quite vulnerable to abuse. I put it forward in my own letter how much of a problem this can be for everyone here. The best thing to happen would be for his latest channels to be restored completely, to where he could open it the way he planned to. The timing of his ban is very suspicious, it can easily have been planned for his reveal to be preempted in such a blatant fashion.
Gisburne's account was probably deleted by an individual scanning for "inappropriate" material. So, some jerk made an arbitrary decision. I doubt there is any committe process. But WebSnarf is correct. It makes people hesitate about what they say, which is the goal of censorship.
The fact that google "inherited" in one way or another YouTube's tagging and search pattern makes me wonder, too. For example, can Google drop a whole domain from its database because of one hypertext document that's "objectionable"?
I think I was one of your first subscribers (in one of my incarnatations) and you never disappoint me with your videos. I consider you a good friend (as well as a math giant!), and I am truly appreciative of your help and support in this.
Great video as always websnarf. I think that Nick Gisburne drew a lot of us atheists to YouTube. I love the 'community' we have here and the discussions that take place. The idea of it all vanishing on the whim of a censor is sickening.
I agree w/ freetaught.. it is obvious how disturbing this is to you. I agree wholeheartedly not to "let this go". My assumption in regards to canned email responses is based on many yrs working in that field... I just want to point out that it is still an assumption - and that I don't know for sure, even though it does look like it. Take care...
Oh yes, I understand. Your theory actually sounds quite plausible, and matches the idea that YT might just have limited resources -- so they might not be *ABLE* to do proper content policing. But either way, its still wrong, just as banning artwork is wrong.
My sentiments exactly websnarf. There are a lot of atheists out there but we don't share geography. You tube is the only place I have to discuss my real views and be myself. I certainly don't feel victimised here in Ireland in the way many are in the US.. but it certainly isn't an open topic to discuss and nor is anything else that wets my interest.
I don't know who this Nick guy is but by hearing this guys response proves my point about how youtube is. Youtube is run by a bunch of fucking idiots.
vilemeltin 4 years ago 6
lol, agreed
ChromeLocust 3 years ago
They did say that the song he used in the Holy Quran video was copyrighted. YouTube initially banned Nick for inappropriate content, not copyright issues. I strongly suspect that if he used no sound track at all, that matters would have ended there, i.e. Nick would have been banned. YouTube belatedly recognized the firestorm that their decision would engender and "wisely" adjusted their position to more effectively deflect criticism.
premed411 5 years ago
To YouTube,
The censorship of Nick Gisburne is morally reprehensible. This type of behavior has the potential to alienate many members, transforming the current image that YouTube enjoys into something far more sinister. I believe it is in your best interest to reevaluate this decision.
premed411 5 years ago
"There has to be accountability..." I wish that was true.
The relationship between DMCA/Google and YT is probably more profound than any of us realize.
fredastaire1 5 years ago
There's a thread over on Robert Spencer's Dhimmi Watch about Gisburne getting deleted. Check it out via my channel.
dhimmiwit 5 years ago
Nice video and lawlz at all the posts by mranenome, talk about a cry for attention.
g54j 5 years ago
This is another complaint to the banning and censorship of videos not flattering to someone's personal or group beliefs. Nick Gisbourn (Gisbourn2000) (NickGisbourn2000)was banned to posting quotes from the Qar'an. (Period). You need to adapt a policy that video posters make clear the content of their video is pro-christianity or anti-islamic(as example) then flagging is unavailable. Do you want us all to start flagging every viewpoint contrary to our own?
AuShawster 5 years ago
Ok, I do have to admit this is hypothetical. It isnt clear why Gismo got booted. Nonetheless, though I like the idea of absolute freedom of speech more than most people, I doubt YT is under obligation to provide you with it, or to interpret the TOS exclusively according to your opinion of what its terms mean.
mranenome 5 years ago
quality delivery as-per usual.
GOAQ 5 years ago
As for kid porn being against the law, thats simply of matter legally codified censorship. I can propose doing away with all censorship in theory without worrying about minor details like that.
mranenome 5 years ago
What has your ability to propose something or not got to do with anything? You don't get to pick where the lines are drawn. Truly illegal or harmful materials, or anything that's going to get YouTube into lawsuit trouble is perfectly understandable. Anything else is just blatant censorship.
websnarf 5 years ago
Who gets to pick where the lines are drawn is exactly the point. That what your tirade is about, not free speech, because you support censorship. Its no excuse that kid porn is illegal, its not censored because its illegal. Its illegal because people want to censor it that much more.
mranenome 5 years ago
In what sense do you think I support censorship? *I* am not picking any line -- the YT lawyers, TOS and community standards are picking that line because that's what is spelled out in black and white and its what I signed up for. That line does not exclude purely religious speech.
websnarf 5 years ago
You justified censoring kid porn and racist hate speech. Which is undeniably censorship, even if not a single person in the world would bother to oppose it. Also, you agreed to the TOS, which contains limits on your freedom of speech, and does not guarantee that your interpretation of what 'spelled out in black and white' will apply.
mranenome 5 years ago
So theres things you have problems with, and theres things muslims have problems with. And if theyre going to be members of your society, then they have as much right to lobby for censorship as you do, about what bothers them. This is what youre objecting to, not censorship per se.
mranenome 5 years ago
You are, of course, unaware of what "tyrrany of the majority" is, or why we have a constitution and bill of rights in the United States?
websnarf 5 years ago
Neither the constitution nor the bill of rights requires YT to provide you with freedom of speech. They require the govt to provide YT with freedom of speech, at least in the US. If you want to publish on your own, using your own equipment, you can have the same protection from GOVT interference.
mranenome 5 years ago
And yeah Ive heard of 'tyranny of the majority' too, which is why I insist on accusing you of supporting censorship, for what you consider the justifiable cases of kid porn and racist hate speech for example. Its not because I love stuff like that.
mranenome 5 years ago
Ok, well, you are equating kiddie porn and hate speech, with discussions of religion. If you seriously take that position (one not supported by the Law in the US), then there is nothing further that we can discuss.
websnarf 5 years ago
Youre the one who appealed to the sanctity of your right to unbridled freedom of speech, in defiance of the 'tyranny of the majority'. I am merely pointing out that neither you, NOR THE LAW are in any such lofty moral position.
mranenome 5 years ago
Indeed its a ridiculously idealistic, unrealistic position to PRETEND to. Which is what I say youre doing.
mranenome 5 years ago
Oh, and YTs help page states: 'we don't permit hate speech which contains slurs ... intended to attack or demean a ... religion ...' Ive seen what is supposed to be Gonzos video. I suspect it can be argued to qualify.
mranenome 5 years ago
Please feel free, however, to abandon an argument in which your position is clearly indefensible.
mranenome 5 years ago
You are not here to argue. You are here to present a twisted rationalization as if it were an argument. You intentionally bring unrelated things like hatespeech and kiddie porn in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issue because you are unwilling to even remotely reference the main thesis being presented here. You can't argue with people who invoke Godwin's law as their first line of defence.
websnarf 5 years ago
Oh theyre not unrelated. If you did support free speech for all, whether or not they rated it in your opinion, then you would be claiming for Gribley the right to post his video, regardless of what others might reasonably think of it.
mranenome 5 years ago
But of course you do not support free speech for all (indeed, as you say, that would be ILLEGAL). You therefore concede your own speech is subject to censorship, if it is found to be 'hate speech' for example. And as Ive pointed out several times, you are not the sole arbiter of that determination.
mranenome 5 years ago
Thats why I say your invocation of free speech is pointless, empty rhetoric, a mere show. A distraction from the fact that you are defending what can reasonably be argued to be a slur on a religion, exactly the kind of thing that you yourself have said can and ought to be censored.
mranenome 5 years ago
Godwins law. GODWINS LAW. The Usenet joke from, what, 16 years ago? You arent even invoking it correctly. Nobodys said the 'N' word. The OTHER 'N' word. Or the 'H' word NEITHER. Godwins law. You defend yourself with a joke sir. Your whole argument is a joke. I laugh.
mranenome 5 years ago
But ok I guess the whole argument may be academic anyhow, if hes getting booted (repeatedly!) strictly for copyright. So I guess youre maybe off the hook, sort of.
mranenome 5 years ago
But they are quotes from the Qu'ran. So how are these slurs, demeaning, or an attack against them? The only attack here that I see is that of organized people flaging videos they disagree with.
websnarf 5 years ago
They arent verbatim quotes, they are condensed at best, certainly presented out of context, to distort their significance, to defame a religion. Yes, I think it can be argued the video, as a whole, can be considered a slur.
mranenome 5 years ago
"It can be argued"? That's the weakest thing I have ever heard. Here's a challenge for you: Can you find any single authoritative generally accepted english translation of the Koran anywhere? And if not, can you find any english citation of the Koran for which you cannot lob that same pathetic excuse for an argument against it?
websnarf 5 years ago
There are several translations of the Koran available online. Comparing the video quotes to any number of them suggests very much that they are distortions of the original text, not due to any accident of translation. They are out of context in as well. Read in context, in more typical form, they present nothing near the inflammatory impression Griswolds video implies.
mranenome 5 years ago
I really have to wonder what your problem is with this. Griswold definitely wasnt out to pay islam any compliments, and he may very well have distorted the meaning of some of the korans verses to defame it. Is it so important to you, to insult the religion of a billion people? Why dont you go to Mecca and do it personally? That would a nice exercise for you.
mranenome 5 years ago
False question. So typical of you people. Nick's worst crime is that he took *one* of the translations, thinking that it was possible to do so without falling for this convenient trap set by the Islamists.
websnarf 5 years ago
Actually from what Ive read Nick simply lifted the whole schmeer from some Islam bashing site on the web or other. A trap set by Islamists? Is your paranoia medicine wearing off?
mranenome 5 years ago
Now this of course is merely the impression I have gotten from my own casual reading. Others no doubt have their own opinions. Ive already heard yours. Ive even heard that everybody has 1. Has it ever occured to you that such decisions might sometimes be made based at least in part on opinions you dont happen to agree with?
mranenome 5 years ago
No two such translations match, and therefore none can be considered definitive. I believe that is the entire point, which you continue to actively avoid.
websnarf 5 years ago
I dont think any translations have to match for me to be able to read them and understand what they mean. I can read just like you can, or anyone can. A point you seem remarkably unaquainted with.
mranenome 5 years ago
I can also use a search engine (oooooh!). Which makes it easy to determine that Grimace's quotes are lifted word for word from "The Skeptic's Annotated Quran" (in the same order even), a heartwarming little bigoted collection of PARAPHRASES from a traditional translation conveniently located on the same site.
mranenome 5 years ago
So you can shove that bullshit about how this stuff could have come from 'oh gosh just any old translation' right back up your ass, Einstein.
mranenome 5 years ago
Oh Im sorry that was a bit unfriendly wasnt it? Oh dear, am I being disrespectful? Call a fucking net cop.
mranenome 5 years ago
Congratulations on your interweb skillz, you coward. Now do you care to answer the question I had? Find me *ONE* single authoritative english translation of the Qu'ran that has general acceptance and which therefore demonstrates that no such trap exists?
websnarf 5 years ago
Im sorry, are you fucking retarded? Gilbert lifted his shit directly from a collection of "ANNOTATIONS," from a religion bashing website no less, ALSO SHOWING THE TRANSLATION FROM WHICH THEY WERE PRODUCED. They are demonstrably not direct quotes from ANY translation, AS YOU CLAIMED THEY WERE. Yeah the Islams are out to trap you, Einstein. You and Elmer Dumbass Fudd.
mranenome 5 years ago
So I take it the answer is no? You cannot find any generally accepted translation of the Qu'ran to english? I thought not. Now think. Do you suppose there is a reason *WHY* no such universal english translations exist?
websnarf 5 years ago
Well i have a begining of answer to that. Of course the translation problem goes straight to the opposition of two schools of thinking within Linguistics (among others): Relativism and Positivism. You will never find an accurate enough translation of the Qu'ran because Language is contextualy embedded within culture..anyway. We ought to be careful when taking quotes from the Holy texts. But youtube and google are wrong. thx 4 posting. Bring him back NOW.
lominho 5 years ago
Sure you insist Gonad's slur is a reasonable critique of Islam. And youre entitled to that ridiculous opinion. But, as Ive pointed out, you are not the sole arbiter of what constitutes reasonable critique, or hate speech. And in this case I wouldnt surprised if your opinion of the matter did not prevail.
mranenome 5 years ago
This is free service theoretically supported by advertising, and in them main catering to vanity not any kind of socially relevant communication. As far as I know Youtube can delete anything they want, for any reason they want. Sure Id love to see no censorship whatsoever, thatd be great for laughs. Youre not going to complain about kid porn or the KKK propaganda right?
mranenome 5 years ago
Or is it only people who agree with you about whats offensive who are allowed to complain?
mranenome 5 years ago
When you hit the flagging button, YouTube spells out specific categories of unacceptability of the content being flagged. Nick posted quotes from the Qu'ran. Which category do you think that fits into?
websnarf 5 years ago
Which category it goes into is exactly what is being contended, by you and by muslims. A set of choice quotes from the Torah, cherry picked to defame judaism, with no commentary other than perhaps a swastika logo, would likely count as 'hate speech' in germany. The categories are not set in stone.
mranenome 5 years ago
Since youve already conceded censorship per se is ok by you, all that remains is the debate over WHAT shall censored. You are going to exclude muslims from that debate? How exactly?
mranenome 5 years ago
Kid porn is against the law, posting quotes from a Holy book is not.
KKK propganda...the key word for me here is propoganda.. see Posting quotes taken from a book isn't propoganda, so these points are very different.
When it comes down to freedom of speech, it should be practice however the limits that are imposed on it, are the same as the limits imposed on every action taken in society, that it should be kept within the law.
WorldinMotion 5 years ago
See KKK could use free speech, but once they begun practicing in ways that would break the law which we all know they would, then they could be dealt with.
WorldinMotion 5 years ago
And do you think the KKK could come on here and post without getting booted pretty quick from complaints, no matter how how polite they were with their white supremacist nonsense?
mranenome 5 years ago
The YouTube flagging system has a specific category of offensiveness called "hate speech". The KKK, like anyone else, is welcome to post here, they just can't post hate speech.
websnarf 5 years ago
Its hard to imagine any message the KKK could post about their platform, no matter how they worded it, that couldnt be classified as 'hate speech.' As perhaps Ginseng's video was, probably correctly, if the term actually means anything.
mranenome 5 years ago
Seriously, how do you think such categories got defined? Did God write them on the back of the 10 commandements? No, they were arrived at by consensus.
And if you accept Muslims as part of your community, they have input into that consensus. Thats all there is to it.
mranenome 5 years ago
Oh its not propaganda? Im sure you could have a very interesting debate about that.
mranenome 5 years ago
See the thing is, youre not against censorship at all. You just dont want muslims to have anything to say about the standards by which speech will be censored. But if youre determined to have an open society, with censorship, then unless youre going to expel muslims completely, youre going to have to let them have a say about it.
mranenome 5 years ago
Yeah I know you think the evil muslims are trying to take your free speech away. But you already threw free speech out the window, the second you decided it was ok to censor ANYTHING. Youre not the defending free speech at all. Youre just fighting over who will control what gets censored.
mranenome 5 years ago
hi websnarf..just blasted off a missive and wanted to tell you this vid of yours hit the nail on the head..thanks, randi
moorerandi 5 years ago
What I'd like to see is him repost the video without Rob D in it. The copyright infringement for using clubbed to death muddies the waters as to why he was shut down. Too many variables.
theyallsaypete 5 years ago
If you watched Nick's video he reads the message he received from youtube and it specifically mentions "offensive content" NOT copyright infringement, I and dozens if not hundreds of others can assure you that he has conveyed the content of that message accurately.
TheOptimisticSkeptic 5 years ago
It maybe not as clear cut as most people think , nick accepts that he was banned before over copyrighted material, that maybe the case here as his soundtrack is copyrighted, it maybe not the content of his video that is the problem, I dont know if utube was specific in identifying why he was banned if it was just for alleged content and not for what I assume copyright then it is not justified
Blackfingernail 5 years ago
Excellent letter snarf
kalin666 5 years ago
Yet, I do not condone what happened to his entire account. Peace.
tabasca36 5 years ago
Yes, I feel that the flagging system here is quite vulnerable to abuse. I put it forward in my own letter how much of a problem this can be for everyone here. The best thing to happen would be for his latest channels to be restored completely, to where he could open it the way he planned to. The timing of his ban is very suspicious, it can easily have been planned for his reveal to be preempted in such a blatant fashion.
metaknight419 5 years ago
Gisburne's account was probably deleted by an individual scanning for "inappropriate" material. So, some jerk made an arbitrary decision. I doubt there is any committe process. But WebSnarf is correct. It makes people hesitate about what they say, which is the goal of censorship.
dudev 5 years ago
I concur completely, this senseless censorship needs to be stopped. This is worse than a slippery slop... it's damn near a vertical drop.
Truthiness231 5 years ago
The fact that google "inherited" in one way or another YouTube's tagging and search pattern makes me wonder, too. For example, can Google drop a whole domain from its database because of one hypertext document that's "objectionable"?
leporidus 5 years ago
I think I was one of your first subscribers (in one of my incarnatations) and you never disappoint me with your videos. I consider you a good friend (as well as a math giant!), and I am truly appreciative of your help and support in this.
NickGisburne2000 5 years ago
websnarf is a great role model. Thanks for making videos man.
freebaker 5 years ago
Excellent post.
davidbpearson2 5 years ago
Great video as always websnarf. I think that Nick Gisburne drew a lot of us atheists to YouTube. I love the 'community' we have here and the discussions that take place. The idea of it all vanishing on the whim of a censor is sickening.
CanadianGirlfriend 5 years ago
Great vid Websnarf.
I would not have had the pleasure of 'meeting' you if it had not been for Nick Gisburne. He also had a strong hand in me posting atheist vids.
pdoeman 5 years ago
I agree w/ freetaught.. it is obvious how disturbing this is to you. I agree wholeheartedly not to "let this go". My assumption in regards to canned email responses is based on many yrs working in that field... I just want to point out that it is still an assumption - and that I don't know for sure, even though it does look like it. Take care...
anangel13 5 years ago
Oh yes, I understand. Your theory actually sounds quite plausible, and matches the idea that YT might just have limited resources -- so they might not be *ABLE* to do proper content policing. But either way, its still wrong, just as banning artwork is wrong.
websnarf 5 years ago
No. Here is the first paragraph of my response from YouTube's "Heather."
Hi there,
Thanks for your email.
The video(s) Gisburne2000 posted were in violation of YouTube's Terms of Use, as reported by users and verified by the YouTube Team.
xild 5 years ago
wow-- FANTASTIC letter!!!
eyemsoemo 5 years ago
My sentiments exactly websnarf. There are a lot of atheists out there but we don't share geography. You tube is the only place I have to discuss my real views and be myself. I certainly don't feel victimised here in Ireland in the way many are in the US.. but it certainly isn't an open topic to discuss and nor is anything else that wets my interest.
2LegHumanist 5 years ago
You seem to speak with a heavy heart on this subject!
I admire your courage,in challenging youtube on this subject.If you get deleted,I will follow you to (maybe)LiveVideo!
freetaught 5 years ago