10/5 Ok, found the Michelle Malkin video youtube banned.
http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/firsttheycame0545.wmv
Someone tell me why this got banned.
\_ You realize her video "first they came" is available on youtube,
right? Uploaded Feb. 2006. Not by her, granted, but still, it's
not like this isn't on youtube or is in any way non-trivial to find.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wEgoUJqnzxo
\_ Because she is ugly.
\_ No she's not.
\_ Ok, thanks. So there's no reason to have banned the Malkin video.
That's what I thought.
\_ Actually, that's not true. Here's YouTube's Terms of Use on
what submitters agree they will not do:
"(ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could
damage YouTube or any third party;
(iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory,
libelous, threatening, pornographic, harassing, hateful,
racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that
would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil
liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate;
(iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business"
Ignoring the first two, the video is clearly an advertisement
for Michelle Malkin's website. Now, if the submitter had left
off the last bit of the video, the other two sections might
have come into play, but submitter didn't, so they don't.
\_ So all the OTHER videos that show a website should be
removed as well?
\_ If it was just that then why didn't they tell her that
instead of sending her a generic note and ignoring her
attempts to find out which policy she violated? It seems
very simple to tell someone they violated the advertising
clause so they can fix it and continue being a user in good
standing. Banning someone without telling them which of
many policies they violated is, at best, unfair and
unprofessional. And as the above says are they removing
all videos that violate the advertising clause? I think
not. Sorry, not buying it.
\_ I salute your idealism but goddamn Michelle Malkin
is an evil troll with an amazing command of rhetoric
who needs to be destroyed.
\_ It's likely that not all videos that violate the ad
clause are being flagged as inappropriate by users.
MM is a high profile nutjob^H^H^H^Hperson, and as such
is more likely to get scrutinized (and ratted out).
As for professionalism and such, sure, I'll grant that
the organization should answer her requests for more
info. And (now watch carefully, this is where the magic
happens) as for professionalism, MM should stop being a
hatemongering harpy and should try to construct useful
and logical arguments that don't begin and end with
omigodThey'reAllEvil!
\_ Did you see the video that got banned? What is
wrong with it? Where is the evil? And if Malkin
or anyone else wants to use their free service she
should be able to. If not then they should add
something to the terms of service that would exclude
her kind of videos without targetting her personally
and then enforce that policy across the board. Policy
exists to enforce rules equally so people's personal
opinion doesn't factor in to enforcement. I'm sure
you can agree that would be a good thing.
\_ A good thing? Yes. But I think it's pretty clear
that terms of use like those on youtube are written
in part to cover the asses of the owners when they
choose to selectively censor. It's the private
sector equivalent of laws that everyone is
in violation of that give cops the legal cover
to harass whoever they want. I've personally
dealt with this with Cafe Press. Fucking assholes.
\_ Man, I couldn't agree more. Fucking Rupert
Murdock!
\_ According to the person who posted the Terms of
Use, she did. Either way, there are hundreds of
people who post their crap on ebay, myspace, or
youtube who gets their stuff banned and all they
youtube who get their stuff banned and all they
get is nothing more than a form
letter^H^H^H^H^H^Hemail. I'm sure some of them
are quite egregious while others are just
straddling the line. But it doesn't matter. These
companies cater to thousands of free -loaders and
they don't have time to put with the childish
whining of Malkin orto whipe her ass. She should
whining of Malkin or to wipe her ass. She should
be thankful that she was allowed to host her
other videos at no cost.
\_ It isn't costing them anything. She and all
the rest of the users are the youtube product.
She is providing content, not getting a free
ride. If she got banned she has the right to
question it. It isn't childing whining. If
youtube has an editorial policy I'm totally
ok with that *if* they are honest about it,
which they're not. And no, it isn't ok because
they do it to other people, too. And no I
don't think putting your URL for 3 seconds at
the end of a 3 minute video is advertising,
especially in the case of a public figure like
Malkin. Let's be honest and stop ignoring the
elephant: she got banned because she's a
conservative.
\_ It does cost youtube something. Youtube has
a telecom bill to pay. They also need to pay
\_ A core cost their core business
model. Pft.
\_ And if you have a bandwidth
quota, you want to make sure
that your link is being used
by things that conform to
your business model.
for lawyers and insurance in case some ass
fucker goes crazy on them for something
offensive that was posted on youtube. Being
\_ All corporations have lawyers on
retainer. Pft.
\_ And attracting hate mail from
crazy terrorists is probably
something their lawyers told
them not to do. The moment
you have another incident like
the Danish cartoon one, you're
going to be paying huge legal
fees.
a private entity, youtube also has the right
to decide which "products", as you call them,
to put out or reject for whatever reasons
they want. Yes, she has the right to question
\_ Her content and that of many others
is not the direct product. It is
what attracts people to the site so
they can sell ads or do whatever
with their customer database. Of
course they have the right to reject
whatever they want. No one has ever
said otherwise. Red herring.
\_ And the yanking of her video
seems to be generating even
more traffic than her video
did by herself. You're asking
why MM's video got yanked and
I'm saying they based it on
their terms of use. You think
otherwise and I'm saying it
doesn't matter because they
can decide however they want
what's appropriate or not and
they don't have to explain in
Moby Dick form to every reject
why X got yanked.
what youtube did but youtube also has the
right to send her a form letter and tell
her to screw off. Personally, if I was
\_ They do, yes. No dispute there.
Their reason for doing so in this
case is her politics, not any
bogus violation of policy. That is
the issue. Their unprofessionalism
and cowardice is a distinct issue.
\_ Unprofessionalism? Okay, think
about it this way. How many
videos do you think has to be
rejected every day? How many
people do you think youtube
has to approve or reject videos?
How much time do you think it
would take for one of these
guys to wipe someone's ass
everytime their video gets
rejected? You do the math. And
if you're going to be talking
about unprofessionalism, why
not take a look at Malkin
herself. What is her profession?
Last time I checked, nutjob
wasn't a profession.
running a site like youtube, I would find
MM's "products" devaluing to my site. I also
\_ You'd be wrong. She attracts
visitors which is your core product.
\_ Already made my point before.
Yanking an MM video == more
traffic.
wouldn't have my staff put up with MM's
whining because if they had to wipe every
reject's ass the way you and MM are
suggesting, they wouldn't have time for more
productive things like wiping their own ass.
\_ If your company can't afford a form
letter for each of the half dozen
possible policy violations and send
the correct one then your company
is dead anyway. There's this silly
thing called "customer service" that
actually matters in the real world.
\_ which is of course why every
company is outsourcing it to
people in Bangalore who don't
speak English. -tom
\_ And getting crushed in the CS
satisfaction ratings. Which
is why the smart places are
bringing CS back to the US. |
http://csua.com/feed/