March of the Internet Censors
Politics
| October 21, 2006
| Tim
Censorship, as I hear it, comes from the right.
And in some senses, that's true. I freely admit to wanting to keep porn and the F-word (and a few other variants) off broadcast TV. A while ago, the Supreme Court decided that dancing naked was a form of speech. Yet it also held that political and religious speech was not protected, especially (thank you so much, Mssrs. McCain and Feingold) near election time.
So porn is more important than political or religious speech. Noted.
Nakedness = speech.
Speech != speech.
To hear the left -- say, Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle -- tell it, the primary danger to our lives, safety, and, uh, all-around coolness comes from what leftists think of as traditional, conversative, right-leaning quarters:
The circle of life on the Internet is very cruel: When giant corporations take interest in online cultural phenomena, they instantly become exponentially less cool. From Napster to MySpace to "Snakes on a Plane" -- all stopped being a good thing once the Man showed up in the room....
Oooh! "The Man"! How very late-1960's.
But even when a giant corporation is filled with really cool people, they still must answer to stockholders and the threat of lawsuits. And bigger businesses tend to respond when parents groups and politicians start exerting pressure by threatening boycotts and fearmongering about small or nonexistent dangers to children (which can be thwarted better by parental supervision than censorship anyway).
Where does censorship come from? Crusading US politicians! Stockholders! Lazy, negligent parents! and all their demands for moral purity and homespun, white-bread goodness. Clearly, Peter does not allow reality to intrude.
But Michelle Malkin has experienced that intrusive reality, when YouTube deleted her videos (1, 2) and shut down her account -- it seems her videos were opposed to Islamic terrorism. (Are "terrorists" significant YouTube stockholders?) The same thing happened to filmmaker David Zucker, when he posted a satrical video which criticized the Clinton Administration. And Google, who now owns YouTube, has censored Christian ads and pretty much anything that offends the Chinese Communist Party.
Was all of this done at the behest of US politicians? Stockholders? Parents? Fat chance. Each of these is an example of censorship from the left -- censorship by (not in spite of) the "really cool people" at Google and YouTube.
Certainly, there are things the right wants to censor -- I have just admitted some. But that's far less dangerous than what we're seeing here.
Why?
Let's say, just for argument, that I buy YouTube and ban all nudity. You might disagree, and think I'm a throwback to the fifties -- and that would be true, but that's about all you can say. There is no particular idea which is being supressed -- there is no political, religious, or philosophical concept or point of view which requires nudity in order to be communicated from one person to another. This is akin to banning obscenity on a blog: you can communicate all the same ideas, just leave the F-words out or use asterisks. Such censorship does not limit the free exchange of ideas.
But idea-censorship is far more dangerous, far more pernicious, because it blocks a particular view, no matter how it is expressed. When this happens, individuals cannot hear all points of view and choose the best one; the dissenting point of view itself becomes forbidden or criminal. This is, of course, George Orwell's famous "thoughtcrime", and it is on the rise yet again.
As California Democrat Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez recently said, regarding a bill which would apparently prevent people in California public schools from saying or implying homosexuality was wrong:
"The real purpose of SB 1437 is to outlaw traditional perspectives on marriage and family in the state school system. The way you correct a wrong (perspective) is by outlawing. ’Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."
... and then people might end up thinking things we don't want to let them think!
Read that again: the purpose is "to outlaw traditional perspectives."
Update: Apparently Jawa Report has also had a video "that exposed the fake missile strikes in Lebanon" banned.
And Google, who now owns YouTube, has censored Christian ads and pretty much anything that offends the Chinese Communist Party.
I was able to find this ad; Seeking God's guidance in issues surrounding homosexuality
A quick search seems to suggest that Google's censoring policies are applied more or less across the board.
Was all of this done at the behest of US politicians?
Google seems to have responded to outside pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (exactly as the article outlines. CCP members are a group of polititians, no?) in order to operate in China. I knew Google had been under pressure to censor certain search results (but only in China) to be able to operate there. And if they didn't go along, China has its own search engines which would take over the task, or else Yahoo would do it. Supposedly, google ended up replacing the search result with a placeholder to let people know that the results were being removed. But this only happens if you're in China.
Though I just did some quick searches and apparently, the advertisements that might offend the Chinese government were missing, even here in the US. The only return for "falun gong" or "falun dafa" was ebay and amazon. No ads for Dali Lama.
interestingly, this came back for a search on "Hillary Clinton" Republican Ads Denied
Large search engines get involved
politically, controlling ad content
www.forgottoask.com
First, good comments, especially where you disagreed with me. In my treatment of "politicians", I'm admittedly playing on what I think Hartlaub meant, not what he said.
He said "politicians".
But I believe, in context, he meant mainstream, Tipper Gore-type content labelers, "value-oriented" politicians, NOT far-left politicians from foreign nations who want to censor subjects like, say, democracy and Chinese Christianity.
His focus was on "coolness", and I just can't think of him as seeing the loss of Falun Gong or Chinese-language gospel presentation as a serious decrease in coolness.
Read what he says about the danger he believes is posed by politicians: "And bigger businesses tend to respond when parents groups and politicians start exerting pressure by threatening boycotts and fearmongering about small or nonexistent dangers to children..."
The parallel is obvious: the danger from parents is threats of boycots; the danger from politicans is "fearmongering about... dangers to children." Tipper Gore redux.
(Disclaimer: I have no problem with content labeling.)
And, regarding caving to outside politicians, I'd argue that caving to China was NOT what the article predicted.
First, that had already happened, yet the article doesn't mention it at all. It comes across (to me) as focused on future threats, not past compromises by, say, Google. Instead of criticising Google, Hartlaub implies their wealth is still untarnished: "Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin seem like they know how to have a good time, and they acquired their wealth in a manner that didn't involve any children in Sierra Leone losing their limbs."
Again, I don't think Hartlaub was mainly thinking about foreign politicians, who actually have no direct power over YouTube's content, but rather about those in the US, in a regulatory role, who do.
But I could be wrong.
The ad you mention, which I was also able to find just by searching for "god homosexuality" (no quotes, it was the only ad) is not an anti-homosexuality ad; the author teaches that homosexuality is "normal" and pretty much quotes only from the left-leaning theological contingent.
Are these truly the only people interested in the keywords "god" and "homosexuality"? Or we are looking at an example of censorship?
This guy seems to imply the later.
My bad on the "god homosexuality" ad. I should have checked it out.
I agree with you that Hartlaub meant exactly what you say he did.
To hear the left -- say, Peter Hartlaub of the San Francisco Chronicle -- tell it, the primary danger to our lives, safety, and, uh, all-around coolness
As you say, his focus was "coolness." The inclusion of issues like saving lives (which wasn't in the article. Hartlaub doesn't seem to care if people do cool things that endanger their lives) reinforced to me that the argument was supposed to be representative of a broader belief or heuristic espoused by 'the left' as a group. So I tried to address that broader belief, as I've seen it applied on places like Slashdot which seem to have a strong libertarian and moderate leftist slant.
Read what he says about the danger he believes is posed by politicians: "And bigger businesses tend to respond when parents groups and politicians start exerting pressure...
Yeah, large businesses respond more readily to pressure. Hartlaub doesn't seem to be concerned about safety or even sanity since he includes 'White suburban kids are still trying to "ghost ride the whip."' as somthing produced by a formerly "cool" YouTube.
Or we are looking at an example of censorship? This guy seems to imply the later.
The guy you link to is wrong. If you search for "stand to reason" the 'banned site' comes up first in the list. Replies to his posting reinforce that he's incorrect. Google has made a policy of trying as hard as possible not to touch its search content. It only does so when forced to by local law, and then it tries to be as obvious as possible about the censorship. The issue here is with google ads, not google search content.
While I don't know the exact title of Michelle Malkin's anti-terrorism video (she has a lot of videos up), too much shouldn't be made of it being 'flagged.' Anyone can flag video as inappropriate, and YouTube acts on the side of caution in most cases (don't know their precise policy.) Do you have any evidence that this incident was anything more than a few viewers being mean and YouTube reacting according to policy?
My bad...
Well, you and I, we keep each other honest.
I must say, I've rather enjoyed what our dialogue has morphed into. Thanks for putting up with me.
So I tried to address that broader belief, as I've seen it applied on places like Slashdot which seem to have a strong libertarian and moderate leftist slant.
I understand.
On the other hand, are you implying there's anything "moderate" about libertarian belief? Or what is this "moderate"?
I don't call myself a "libertarian" -- though I have a few strong libertarian tendencies (now) -- because I don't think things like crystal methampetamine, child prostitution, etc. should be left up to the free market to sort out.
(Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'll wait 'till the Randians and objectivists offer something more concrete than I've heard so far.)
Google has made a policy of trying as hard as possible not to touch its search content.
Good to hear that he's wrong. In this case, "my bad." I'd heard such allegations before, and done a whole bunch of tests to see if it was true, but came up exhonorating Google -- at that point anyway.
Though I did discover some very odd behaviors, where Google failed to find some things with one phrase, and then, adding or subtracting a word, it then appeared. (I've forgotten the exact specifics.)
too much shouldn't be made of it being 'flagged.' Anyone can flag video as inappropriate...
Okay, so I guess I should have quoted this:
YouTube's newest posting about such "flagging" came just a few days ago, as the political ad was making the rounds.
Maryrose, of The YouTube Team, said if any video viewer flags a video as inappropriate, it is forwarded to a queue for the company's customer support team to review.
"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."
It seems to be about removal not flagging (but it's hard to say, because it seems to touch on both issues)... but either way, Malkin's contention is not merely that the videos were "flagged".
To quote Michelle quoting the New York Times:
YouTube users can flag any video as containing pornography, mature content or graphic violence, depicting illegal acts or being racially or ethnically offensive. A video is removed — as Ms. Malkin’s was on Sept. 28 — only if a review by the company’s customer support department agrees that it is inappropriate, or that the video is on its face in violation of the site’s terms of use.
If even the New York Times (not famous for defending conservative pundits) thinks something is wrong here, then I'd wager there's a problem.
She also states that a number of accounts have been closed, and that the entire conservative group was "flagged" as inappropriate. And I'd wager that during that "review" phase describe above, YouTube staff were perfectly capable of "unflagging" or even "flag-proofing" videos which did not violate their terms.
Gee, I wonder: Can I really flag anything?
I must say, I've rather enjoyed what our dialogue has morphed into. Thanks for putting up with me.
Lol. likewise!
On the other hand, are you implying there's anything "moderate" about libertarian belief? Or what is this "moderate"?
Folks like Jane Galt identify themselves as 'libertarians' while considering the hardliners in the formal Libertarian party to be (and I quote) "barking moonbats." Hardline ideological libertarians are nuts, but some folks are of a more pragmatic variety. They tend to worship the free market, and have less of a 'blood and soil' approach to nationalism than old-school conservatives. Likewise, she's not exactly religiously conservative from what I can tell. But she's not anarchist because she's okay with private concentrations of power like corporations. She's pro-choice even though she believes that abortion is immoral, for instance.
If there's a better classification (classic liberal?) let me know.
Though I did discover some very odd behaviors, where Google failed to find some things with one phrase, and then, adding or subtracting a word, it then appeared. (I've forgotten the exact specifics.)
Did you try redoing the search? Google used to shuffle searches. I just tried them and they apparently don't any more. Even if that wasn't the reason, I'm not sure i see why this is odd.
"Videos are NEVER automatically removed simply because they've been flagged," Maryrose said. "Every single flagged video is reviewed by someone at YouTube who then determines if the video contains material that is against our terms of use."
Interesting.
Gee, I wonder: Can I really flag anything?
I don't see why not but I've never tried. Why do you ask?
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« David Kuo: An Explanation |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Higher Criticism of Pooh »
|
And Google, who now owns YouTube, has censored Christian ads and pretty much anything that offends the Chinese Communist Party.
I was able to find this ad; Seeking God's guidance in issues surrounding homosexuality
A quick search seems to suggest that Google's censoring policies are applied more or less across the board.
Was all of this done at the behest of US politicians?
Google seems to have responded to outside pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (exactly as the article outlines. CCP members are a group of polititians, no?) in order to operate in China. I knew Google had been under pressure to censor certain search results (but only in China) to be able to operate there. And if they didn't go along, China has its own search engines which would take over the task, or else Yahoo would do it. Supposedly, google ended up replacing the search result with a placeholder to let people know that the results were being removed. But this only happens if you're in China.
Though I just did some quick searches and apparently, the advertisements that might offend the Chinese government were missing, even here in the US. The only return for "falun gong" or "falun dafa" was ebay and amazon. No ads for Dali Lama.
interestingly, this came back for a search on "Hillary Clinton" Republican Ads Denied
Large search engines get involved
politically, controlling ad content
www.forgottoask.com
Posted by: Ryan on October 22, 2006 01:37 AM