YouTube Blackout Day, Dec 19
Joe McVeigh
Take aim at YouTube's new policies this Friday, December 19, by doing nothing at all.
December 19th, 2008 is YouTube Blackout Day, when some free speech advocates will avoid surfing to YouTube to protest the fact that the site has begun removing videos that it feels are too offensive by algorithmically demoting videos from the most discussed list. But how much of this boycott is an actual infringement on the freedom of speech and how much is it simply people complaining that their ability to reach the mass public through YouTube’s popularity?
If we look at censorship and free speech, one of the longest running debates is whether or not public libraries have the right to remove books that they feel are offensive from their shelves. This debate came up most recently when Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was alleged to have asked for the removal of certain books from the Wasilla Public Library. Free speech advocates have argued that public libraries should not be allowed to pull books off the shelves because the public, and more importantly the individual person, has right to decide what should or should not be censored and what is or is not offensive. The idea is basically that adult citizens possess the ability to process the material contained in publicly published books in whichever way they want. But no-one is allowed to just walk into a library and demand that their as-of-yet-unpublished pamphlet be placed on the shelves.
That said, YouTube’s censorship is not an encroachment on freedom of speech. YouTube is only a section of the internet where people can publish their own videos, much like a book store is a section of the market place that can decide which books they want to sell or a private library is a section of the public sphere that can decide which books they want to carry. YouTube has the right to censor whatever they like, i.e. pornography, racism, bigotry, or Martha Stewart videos. Instead of working like a public library, YouTube works for free speech much like a newspaper or book store does in that they can pick and choose what they want to publish or make available.
On the other hand, YouTube blew up a few years ago into a site where everybody and their brother could voice their opinion. YouTube became somewhat of a microcosm of the whole internet where anybody anywhere could post anything. But it was never a site to protect the first amendment nor was it a site to censor the public. And unlike the internet at large, YouTube is not a bastion of the right to free speech or the liberty to voice an opinion. And unlike private websites, YouTube is not a site where anyone anywhere can post anything. I think what is at issue here is YouTube’s popularity and the fact that choosing to censor things at all makes it harder for the regular person to be heard. I believe people are upset that YouTube’s right to censor, much like a private bookstore or library’s right to censor, will shrink their audience, which it will.
People are proclaiming that their rights are being infringed by YouTube’s censorship. But just because they’re not able to publish their insight or ignorance on YouTube does not mean that they no longer have the right to publish their views. What they’re upset about is no longer being able to reach the same amount of people. That may be a shame, but I know of no right, statute, or law in the U.S. Constitution or elsewhere that says every person has the right to publish whatever they want on YouTube.com.
YouTube’s popularity is certainly one of the things that made it great. In a way, it was an example of how the powers of the internet can be used for good. It broke down, or at least weakened the obstacles for citizens to speak their voice and be heard by millions.
Unfortunately for those people that fear their message won’t be heard, YouTube is a private site, run by private individuals, not the public. Although the YouTube Terms of Use claim that the user is solely responsible for the videos that they upload, I think users need to realize that YouTube is a large corporate enterprise owned by an even larger corporate enterprise. They have an image and they want to protect that image. YouTube is not an online private room, where anything can be expressed or discussed. Besides, the Terms of Use expressly state:
YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content or a User Submission is appropriate and complies with these Terms of Service for violations other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length. YouTube may remove such User Submissions and/or terminate a User’s access for uploading such material in violation of these Terms of Service at any time, without prior notice and at its sole discretion.
The boycott then boils down to people complaining that the site on which they have chosen to publish their videos is now exerting its right to disallow such videos because of its guidelines. If the New York Times, for whatever reason, does not publish all the letters to the editor that they receive, who can blame them? The New York Times has the right to do so.
Has YouTube offended the users that made it what it is?
I am all for freedom of speech and the beleif that people can decide for themselves what they like and do not like (see here). I also believe that this boycott can be a way for the users who made YouTube worth the $1.6 billion that Google Inc. paid for it to assert their influence. But let us not forget that YouTube, or Google, censoring its material is not an offense to anyone’s civil liberties. No matter how indebted YouTube is to the users that made it popular, it is in no way required to do anything for them. This boycott may help save the opportunity for people to reach a mass audience and I hope that it does that. But believing that YouTube is in it for anything but the money or that this censorship program is equivalent to McCarthyism and blacklisting, as some Blackout Day organizers have claimed, is quite simply a delusion. Do not confuse YouTube with the Internet.
Finally, this article was written very quickly so that it could be published before the YouTube Blackout Day and I may have overlooked several points. If so, I apologize and I hope that they are raised in the comments section. Also, I promise that all comments, save for overtly bigoted ones, will be approved.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Overtly bigoted comments? That is what free speech is all about, protecting the rights of those you do not want to hear, not those you want to hear. Bigots are merely people who reveal obstinate belief in the superiority of their own opinions (I am paraphrasing here from the Oxford dictionary). More generally, bigots are those we consider idiots. I say bring it on. Let us propound inanities. Let us promulgate idiots. Let us say the Queen is a lizard. Let us say Christ was a Martian. Let us say the Nazi Holocaust never happened. But to censor these words…? Never, if you value your own freedom. After all, speaking idiocy in an even tone of voice is the mainstay of academia.
Thank you to the writer for the excellent article. Where I would disagree is that although, as you rightly point out, You Tube is not equivalent to the internet, it is still the most popular site for this very new form of media. History shows that whenever a new form of media emerges, the initial phase is the most creative. Once something becomes popular, money takes over and gives us a version of commercial values. Look at what happened to the precursor to the Metro paper we all see on the public transit. For those of you youngsters, once upon a time there was such a thing as an independent free daily on the streets of Helsinki. Helsingin Sanomat bought it and remade it into the 100 Lehti (the Metro we now see is only the international corporate competition of the semi-international corporate competition of the former 100 Lehti, which used to be independent). In the mid to late nineties, when TV was de-regulated in Finland, I remember witnessing the wildest choice of channels on TV. Now all those channels have been bought up, shut down, denied access. There used to be channels dedicated to filming up-and-coming rock band members sitting in a park in Kallio talking about their music, there used to be people making home videos concerned about public housing, there used to be a news reader reading the news naked, there used to be channels showing people riding their dirt bikes uphill as fast as they could. All day long. All kinds of great stuff, with no commercials, with no corporate sponsorship. With no reason to do it except they had a camera and wanted to share something.
Wait a minute. Sounds kinda like You Tube. What happened to those TV channels? Oh yeah, they were bought up by the corporate media. There are windows of opportunity whenever a new technology comes into mass awareness. You Tube, and the internet in general, is such a technology. We are currently at a crossroads. While the internet is not You Tube and You Tube is not the internet, right now a massive campaign is under way to change the entire make-up of the internet. The real problem with You Tube is not that it is a commercial enterprise, but that it will become only a commercial enterprise. And what happens when commercial interests become indistinguishable from public interests? Anyone would rightly approve of the Finnish library system. To my mind it is one of the last bastions of free speech and general intellectual decency. But what happens when Pepsi buys the city stock of buildings and books? This is not fantansy. This is what the protest is all about.
Already in Finland, public access servers block ‘politically sensitive’ sites. In Australia, a new government policy plans to filter all incoming internet service, giving users access only to a few thousand sites. Obama plans to introduce Internet 2, a worldwide government/corporate approved (yes, coming to Finland too) service which will give you a fraction of the sites you now use. It’s a no-brainer what they will offer through this new service, which is planned to overtake all internet access within a couple of years. For all of you who have grown up with the internet, I hope you realize what free internet access means. One day you may be oldies telling the youngies there was such a thing as a free You Tube. And they may tell you to change the channel. And I’ll still be waiting for that nude newsreader to reappear.
Anyway, all you have to do to participate in this boycott is nothing at all. And what the hell is wrong with that, as Buddha said. (I’m paraphrasing again)
What a thought-provoking article, Joe, and what a splendid follow-up, Vello. These truly are interesting times, because now, finally, people are starting to question the ubiquity of Internet and all its paraphernalia. From day one, the problem with Internet has been the same as its most promising premise: accessibility for everyone everywhere.
I think people got drunk on the brew that is Internet publishing. This happened first with newsgroups, mailing lists and message boards. One could find channels dedicated to absolutely anything under the sky (and even beyond). When blogs reared their heads and social networking began to bloom, a whole new sense of community was born on the bastion of free speech.
When YouTube was created, and the sales of digital camcorders rocketed sky-high, the most prominent medium of celebrity was there for anyone to use. In addition to a wealth of archival clips from TV-shows, movies and live concerts, to name but a few, YouTube introduced a 15-minute scheme to celebrity that no TV reality show could ever achieve. Asocial teenagers would gain hundreds of thousands of hits on videos where they comment on daily politics. Celebrity status would be achieved by being goofy, playing cover tunes of Kansas songs or recording the laughter of your baby child.
So when YouTube enforces their explicitly defined Terms of Service, due to whatever reason, the community feels threatened. “It’s not that any of MY videos were censored, but just the fact that some are is atrocious!” the people say on their latest videos. But, like Joe said, YouTube was never a substitute for Internet and neither did it ever advocate the same freedoms. YouTube was never a democracy where the community would have an equal say in the conduct of business.
And this is why I think these protests are silly and dumb. Groups in Facebook are gathering hundreds of thousands of people who are voting for the “old layout” to be reinstated, because there’s apparently something wrong with the new one. What, I ask, do these people hope to achieve? We’re talking about businesses with revenue of tens of millions of dollars. There will always be at least as many people who care little for these boycotts as there are those who give into mass hysteria. In my opinion, people are barking up the wrong tree. If you have a problem with YouTube or Facebook, go ahead and create your own site. That’s what Internet is for.
As for the Orwellian last paragraph in your comment, Vello, I think you’re being a touch too pessimistic. For one thing, I think that we’ve only barely scratched the surface of what potential a world-wide network (e.g. Internet) has. It’s obvious that big changes will come along in the future. For the last some years, it’s been predicted that Internet will asphyxiate under the load of spam and junk that already comprises some 80% of all Internet data stream. If Internet truly falls under government and/or corporate management, I’m sure the people will find a way. I’m being optimistic, but I’ve lived through the glory days of Internet so I know what the people are capable of.
Thanks, Vello. This is mostly a reply to you, although I’ll try to answer some of Simo’s points as well.
Yes, I think bigotry is an example of free speech (as is even toned idiocy, or academia). But obviously I wrote the article so quickly that it proved my first reaction to a bigoted comment would be to not post it. Thanks to you, when I think about it, that would be wrong because when we say everyone has the right to free speech, we have to mean everyone. Although it hurts to say it, that includes bigoted groups like the KKK.
But this brings up an interesting point in the free speech debate. Here at BTSB, we have never been faced with a bigoted comment, and so haven’t had to deal with approving or denying it (although now, I’m voting for approval). But there has to be a line somewhere. For example, what if someone posted a comment that was a direct physical threat against our authors or editors? It’s just like people shouldn’t be allowed to call out “Fire!” in a movie theater and induce a panic where someone could get hurt. I suppose the line should be decided by common sense, but only after hearing all sides of the story. Then again, who decides what common sense is?
As for the boycott, I am supporting it because I believe it is a way to show what YouTube could be, and what YouTube was. The corporation aspect of the whole deal makes me sick too. But I wrote this article because I thought the advocates for this boycott were misleading and mistaken when they said YouTube’s new policies are an attack on free speech. Free speech is only applicable in the public sphere and even there it is limited, as I noted above. YouTube is not in the public sphere. I thought that the advocates proclaiming free speech were missing the point that they were infringing on YouTube’s rights. If BTSB chose to deny overtly bigoted comments, for whatever reason, and people attacked us for it, they would be attacking our own personal rights.
I think what is at issue here are whether or not YouTube’s policies are a sign of what’s to come for the whole internet. This is very scary and it is another reason I will support the boycott. YouTube’s sheer popularity could prove that limiting free speech is not only possible but profitable and it could pave the way for what Vello spoke about in his comment, namely, Internet 2. But if the boycott is a success it could be the public’s way of voicing its opinion without saying anything at all. In effect, the sound of silence on Friday could be the sound of advancing human rights, which is not what it was to Simon and Garfunkel, I think.
As for Simo, I agree that the boycott probably won’t accomplish much and that it is a bit silly. He’s right that there are always going to be enough people who don’t care for these boycotts. And really, it’s all about the Benjamins. But I’m a bit in between on Vello and Simo’s last paragraphs. I think what Vello talks about is scary and the public should watch out for it, but I’m with Simo when he says that it’s too pessimistic and people will find a way. At least, if Internet 2 and government control comes to pass, I hope they will because I don’t know how to find a crack in the system.
Finally, on Saturday I promise to post a few links here to news articles describing how the boycott went.
Cool that you’ll keep us posted.
I misspoke earlier. The Queen is not a lizard. The Queen of England is Satan’s whore. Finally got that off my chest. I know I know I know I know. I do have a pessimistic attitude. The thing is though, I did grow up in a world without the internet, and I do know the internet is dependent upon NOT your willingness to revolt, but the servers’ willingness to give you access. You can rally all you want after the fact, but if the juice is turned off, who is going to notice? All I’m saying is protest and take action while you can – and anyway, come on, one weekend of non-action is not going to kill you, even if it is a stupid idea.
Here are some links on internet censorship to get you started, coming to a server near you, for those optimists out there.
(And don’t get me wrong. I really do like optimists. I am one too!)
Australia
http://www.prisonplanet.com/australia-to-enforce-mandatory-chinese-style-internet-censorship.html
http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24632210-15306,00.html?referrer=email
Canada
http://realitycheck.typepad.com/commentary_news/2008/07/death-of-free-internet-is-imminent–canada-will-be-test-case.html
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2007/01/17/NetNeutrality/
US
http://www.infowars.com/?p=6158
ahem ahem ahem, multiply by 50
Britain
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-seek-to-censor-the-media-1006607.html
ahem ahem ahem, multiply by 50
Finland
http://wow.gm/europe/finland/helsinki/article/2008/3/15/demonstrations-planned-to-protest-internet-censorship-in-finland
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/0252236&from=rss
International
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/myspace_trojan_horse_of_internet_censorship.htm
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29926.90;wap2
http://www.infowars.com/?p=3730&cp=8
Keep up the good fight.
Hello all. So far, there aren’t any news articles about the YouTube boycott. But here’s some links to interesting articles that support both sides of the censorship debate (but mostly the anti-censorship) and YouTube as a business.
On fairness in the media, Milt Rosenberg, radio host, and Brian Anderson, editor of the City Journal and author of the new book A Manifesto for Media Freedom, discuss the fairness doctrine. Find the unabridged podcast here.
On YouTube as a business (and the money it’s making for other businesses), click here.
On YouTube’s arrangement with the record labels, click here.
On the recent conviction of a university student who posted a how-to bomb making video, click here or here.
On the trial of a New York police officer, who was caught on tape, which was uploaded to YouTube, assaulting a bicyclist, click here. The article also includes links to the video and other YouTube videos of New York police officers, including the good, the bad, and the boring.
On YouTube’s power over Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo! in the Internet search world, click here or here.
On a blog featuring a video of Alex Jones, of The Alex Jones Show, talking about the boycott, click here.
Some people are carrying the boycott over the weekend, so I’ll look for news articles tomorrow and Monday and post the links to ones I find. And thanks to Vello for the other links.
I’ve checked Google and Yahoo’s news search engines but didn’t come up with any articles about the boycott. Also, NufffRespect, one of the main champions of the boycott does not have any new videos on his page.
Sorry, but I’ve got nothing else to offer. It looks like this boycott did about nothing worthy of a news report.
Merry Christmas.
Leave your response!
About
Archives
Calendar
Authors
Popular tags:
Recent Comments
Most Commented
most viewed