Censorship on YouTube?

There's some pretty offensive stuff on YouTube as well as some great stuff but how much longer will YouTube allow conservatives to publish edgy material?

I ask the question because Michele Malkin's 'First, they came for...' video about the dangers of Islamic extremists has been banned by YouTube.  This has happened at the same time that YouTube has been hosting videos of US troops under attack in Iraq.

It's easy for conservatives to be conspiratorial/ paranoid about this.  It might simply be the case that MM's video essay was banned because "YouTube pulls videos if enough users flag them as inappropriate [and] lots of it people who can't stand Malkin flagged it, and it was automatically removed" (Blue Bayou).

There is a long-term trend here that should worry conservatives and it's spotlighted by Robert Cox in The Examiner:

"According to USA Today, 98 percent of the money donated to political parties by Google employees — “Google Millionaires” — went to Democrats.  But it’s not just Google’s media and financial muscle that benefits the left. Liberals run the leading blog search engine — Technorati. They run the leading blog software manufacturer — Six Apart [who host ConservativeHome]. They invented two of the most important blogging technologies — Podcasting and RSS. The list goes on and on... Malkin may have been the first casualty in the coming information war but she certainly will not be the last. Yet online conservative elites seem not to care. They fail to realize that voters are increasingly accessing news and information from these new media sources and that these sources are using their editorial discretion to publish and promote a liberal — not conservative — agenda."

Food for thought.  In the meantime (at least until the censor strikes...) 18 Doughty Street Talk TV has its own YouTube page.

Comments

[kingbongo]

I suppose it gives the lie to the idea that it is the right that dominates the blogosphere. 'Google millionaires' are bound to be predominantly Democrat because it's the sort of job where earning squillions makes them feel guilty and rather than do something useful like help others they hand money over to the latest faddish lefty cause.

[bee]

but the second link says that the Iraq war footage was actually removed when they were told about it.....

"In recent weeks, YouTube has removed dozens of the videos from its archives and suspended the accounts of some users who have posted them, a reaction, it said, to complaints from other users.
More than four dozen videos of combat in Iraq viewed by The New York Times have been removed in recent days, many after The Times began inquiries.

But many others remain, some labeled in Arabic, making them difficult for American users to search for. In addition, new videos, often with the same material that had been deleted elsewhere, are added daily..."

So in other words, they keep removing it - what's the problem?

I don't see any mainstream stuff being removed on either side, just extremist rantings. They are quite entitled to not host this stuff if they don't want to.

I don't like this "there's a big conspiracy against us" on the right. There is undoubtedly insidious bias in the media in Britain, e.g., the fact that most of the BBC are lefties, but don't try and see it where it doesn't exist. They remove videos on an individual basis, it's absurd to say there's some big conspiracy.

[Josh]

Well bee, I suppose the balance is preserved. To use a Trey Parker-ism: Lefties are guilt-ridden pussies. Righties are paranoid dicks.

Of course, as kingbongo points out, the Google millionaires became rich through the machinery of free capitalism. If anyone is worrying about them cutting off the right, they'll be cutting themselves off in the process.

[Ted]

I'd have been shocked to find that the guys who invented Google were anything else but Democrats. They are in California after all just by the Bay - as are most of the others who invent internet stuff. It's not a lefty conspiracy but an age and culture thing.

But as US liberals there is a healthy dose of First Amendment & civil libertarianism in their genes - so sorry Ms Malkin it's more likely that enough users tagged your effort as inappropriate than some web-left conspiracy is trying to stifle free expression.

[TFA Tory]

Censorship exists in the Tory party too. The party refused to allow the Freedom Association to have a stall at party conference. The organisers claimed all places were let but then offered a stall to another TFA supporter. Inclusive? Tolerant? Pass the sick bag Alice!

[Matt Davis]

You Tube does actually have a recent record of banning non offensive but conservative vids. Last week they banned David Zucker's fantastic anti Democrat TV Ad (the one that the Republicans are two chicken to use). There are various other instances of them banning right leaning political stuff whilst leaving alone the left leaning.Probably this is a result of the flagging process since You Tube viewers are more likely to be left than right in political terms. However shoudln't they be leaving anything that isn't actually pornographic, advocates violent or is pure hatred alone for people to decide about for themselves?

[Andy Mercer]

This all suggests that CCO should make setting up a hosting service a high prioity. Instead of spending money on billboards, it would be far more sensible to invest in a hosting service that can provide a secure home for conservative blogs that might be threatened with censorship in the future.

Many people forget that the BBC did not always have such an institutionalised Left-wing bias. In the 1950's and 1960's, it was a high-priority target for KGB infiltration. Simultaneously, entryism by Left-wing fellow-travellors changed the culture at the BBC, until eventually, expressing Right-wing or even Centrist views came to be seen as odd, quaint, or even "extreme".

The KGB may have gone, but the Left-wing caucus among media types has not. Unless early steps are taken to provide a secure platform for Right-wing internet media, we can expect to see the same invidious, stealthy censorship start to creep in.

It is unlikely that YouTube's action is the start of that process, but it is a hint of what might happen in 5, 10 or 15 years.

[bee]

Except Andy, youtube are not part of any "process". People complain, they take the video down.... I'm sure if lots of Republicans complained about an opposite Democrat attack ad, they'd do the same.

It's not a news organisation. They just host people's silly videos.

This is a non-story propagated by ghastly shrill US bloggers who insist there's a massive global conspiracy to turn us into pawns of radical Islam/Hilary Clinton/insert-stupid-conspiracy-of-your-choice here.

Can we stick to the massive, and far more relevant, BBC bias, rather than imputing censorship motives onto video hosting sites.

[Andrew Young]

Guys,

Aren't we missing a trick here?

Videos can be removed if enough people complain about them, videos can also not be removed fast enough if the same video is posted multiple times.

Instead of grousing about the unfairness of it all it would be better to get organised and start going on the offensive.

American Republicans have shown that persistent targetting of media outlets, by write in campaigns etc. allows for some leverage in setting the agenda.

Conservatives already hold an advantage in the blogosphere - let's start putting it to good use!

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

I am sure there will be a rival service to YouTube soon enough. Besides if its get banned by YouTube there are enough people with space to slap it up on their own webspace and show it.

[Matt Davis]

We cannot just ignore this issue as bee suggests, after all that is how we allowed the BBC and the bulk of the rest of the broadcast nedia to end up dominated by the left.We as a party have found it nearly impossible to get a fair hearing in the media and get our message across because we failed to address creeping lefty infiltration until it has become almost too late. We must not make that same mistake again and as new media becomes increasingly more influential it is even more vital that we don't let it slip away from us by deciding that something else is more important.

Andrew Young's idea is a good one though, I'll sign up to that.

[ukfirst]

Has nobody spotted that this is the EU yet again extending its reach to all aspects of our lives?

[Stuart Raven]

You can spot the PC leftist bias a mile off. As someone said, these internet millionaires may have prospered througb free enterprise but they're PC leftists to a man.

You only have to look at the way that the Tory Party has been hi-jacked by PC liberals to see it's going on everywhere.

The Conservative Party should se up a unit to monitor all forms of leftist bias.

[Richard Carey]

You only have to look at the way that the Tory Party has been hi-jacked by PC liberals to see it's going on everywhere.

Before you see conspiracy everywhere, as a committed Conservative who backs the current leadership (one of that 73% in the last ConHome survey) I'm guessing you must be including me in that.

Well, if you can reduce this directly to yah-boo, so can I - we won, get used to it. That's not a constructive way to operate, though - I'd like to see you to get on board and help the Party win, I hope we can persuade you!

The YouTube issue: they're a privately owned concern (I guess they're now a subsidiary of a publicy listed company in Google), and can maintain whatever policy in removing listings that they like. As a commercial organisation, however, the main way to express any concerns at their editorial policy is to reduce their traffic!

The draft EU directive concerning regulation of internet broadcasting, and the UK's suggested compromise proposal, concerned me far more. It does strike me as an excellent example of the harmful effects you could cause when you legislate without having anything like a clear view of what you want to actually accomplish and why.