diehealthy.org

A follow-up to YouTube Censor Descri.. Bad. They’ve terminated Mr. Gisburne’s newest account and apparently claimed the removal of content was for copyright infringement all along. Curious, that.

Obviously I’m not a lawyer but I have a fairly broad understanding of the law. YouTube is a private corporation operating a public service. They have the right to deny anyone access and use of that service for any reason at any time. That is to say, they can deny someone use.

What they cannot do is to make the claim they are doing so due to legal doctrine when they aren’t. That is in fact a fraud, which is the very least a civil tort. They apparently claim that because he repeatedly violated someone’s copyright that forces them to terminate his access under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). While that’s understandable, if you are not aware of a violation you cannot be responsible for repeat violations under that law.

In other words, if I upload 10 videos to YouTube in one day, they cannot ban me and claim it is due to repeat violations. While there are multiple violations, that is different and separate from repeat violations. The same could be said if I uploaded the 10 videos over the course of a number of days. And claiming that as their reason is fraudulent.

Slashdot’s story about Free Speech on the internet. The part I’m focusing on (as the Slashdot comments do as well) is the story of Mr. Nick Gisburne. He’s atheist and likes to make videos discussing why. Primarily his videos have focused on Christianity, but he recently posted one about Islam.

And then all his videos and his account were promptly wiped out. So much for “don’t be evil.”

[this link is no longer valid, check the link to his site below for more information including his explanation]His explanation of what went down.

[this link no longer valid : they removed the video again : available in AVI format here]The Video that caused it.

Everything points to YouTube getting a bunch of complaints which claim the video was somehow inappropriate; YouTube simply caved to the pressure. That’s hardly free speech, and it sounds a lot like resistance is futile.

And that’s a big problem with the culture of this planet. Not just America, not just the West. The world. Earth. And so when you see companies like Google (parent of YouTube) come around… companies composed of intellectuals, of geeks, you hope for change.

They’re people that have to have a few spare cycles not looping on calculating their bank accounts’ interest, or on some other worthless venture like how to ruin peoples lives so that they’ll do your bidding… no no, sorry. You fail cynicism 101. They’re the same stock as the rest of the assimilates.

It’s pathetic. It’s the recent Boston Bleat-party and the allowance of Presidential autocracy. It’s the Campaign for a New Viet…Iraq and it’s the god damned Reich 2.0.

No, obviously what YouTube did isn’t as bad as all that and really none of those things are equatable. Yet they are comparable in the sense they are all fundamental breakdowns of the ability to think. The removal of one man’s account without cause will be held as no big deal… especially to the mauve faced von Mises sorts that will say “it’s a private business and they can do as they please.”

Sure it is, but then it’s your duty to stop using their service unless you condone the behavior or they repair the damage they’ve done.

And the whole thing was probably automated. I doubt anyone really looked at his videos at the company and said, “wow, yeah… this should not be available. This is a brain virus that’s just going to get everyone fired right up and… they’ll start swallowing their own tongues!” Nah. If so, whoever they give that authority to needs a check up with a good philosopher.

I have no interest in living in a world where the irrationality of my fellow man can take away my rights, or my irrationality can take away another’s rights. Plain and simple. If you feel differently, that’s more than fine, that’s great.

But if you take action on that feeling, to actually restrict my ability, you break the contract and any bond to me and mine. And that’s the linchpin that, when pulled, causes the passenger cars to get away from the engine pretty damn quick.

I’m getting relatively sick of people bitching about Wikipedia, arguing that since anyone can edit it that makes it suspect or problematic. It simply isn’t true. If you are not familiar enough with Wikipedia or the standard practices of verifiable citation to use it, don’t. Otherwise, you should have no qualms.

Why do I say this? Well, at its current maturity you can use Wikipedia with dependable results if you know your way around. Down the road you won’t even have to be able to read the handful of links at the top of every article and use a little noodling to work out some things you should do to verify an article for accuracy.

Why do I say that “down the line” bit? Wikipedia is actively working on version 1.0. This will be a ‘canonical’ set of articles that have met certain standards (much like the standards for the featured articles displayed on the front page).

After 1.0 the project will release archives of the article set that meets the criteria for inclusion and you’ll be able to purchase at the cost of media, purchase at a higher cost which will donate the difference to Wikipedia, download, etc. the article set.

Not only that, you’ll be able to read Wikipedia at a 1.0 threshold. That means at your option (and likely by default on some number of articles) the information will be static. No more tripling of elephantiasis diagnoses in the past six months. You’ll still be able to click a link to the ‘current revision’ of the article, but a comparison (known as a diff) to the 1.0 will clearly show whether you’re looking at valid or specious content.

So, please all of you media types and bloggers and who the hell knows who else criticizes Wikipedia from a point of ignorance: stop.

———————————————–
Disclaimer: While I know that Wikipedia is in fact working toward a version 1.0, I don’t have any confirmation about the threshold aspect. I assume that will be incorporated. It’s what I thought when I read about the 1.0 plans, and it makes sense.
———————————————–