Xyre » internet

Google stands up to Lieberman

Sam — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:30:57 +0000

Google has said on its blog that it will not remove certain videos from YouTube at the request of U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who had demanded their removal on the grounds that they were “produced by terrorist organizations” and/or showed depictions of “gratuitous violence” or hate. And Google did remove some of these videos, “primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech.” However, they stood up to him and did not delete most of the videos his staff flagged:

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube — even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy.

Good on Google for not letting themselves get bullied by Joe Lieberman, and for striking a blow for free speech and open debate. How did Lieberman turn into a despicable douchebag?

Hat-tip: Think Progress

Kristol, Newsmax, and Wikipedia

Sam — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 23:28:05 +0000

Bill Kristol, the New York Times‘ newly-resident conservative, wrote a boneheaded column in today’s paper in which he declares…well, it’s not important what he declared. The point is, it was completely wrong. His source was the right-wing website Newsmax.com, which is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a reliable source. Anyway, Kristol had to publish a correction, and the entire blogosphere has been abuzz with the news all day, so if you’re that curious, just search for it on Google. What’s interesting is that now the author of the piece on Newsmax.com, one Ronald Kessler, is trying to remove this incident from his Wikipedia page.

This kind of battle simply can’t be won: it’s become known as the Streisand effect, after Barbara Streisand tried to have an aerial photo of her house removed from the Internet and copies of the picture simply multiplied like tribbles all over cyberspace. The same thing happened not too long ago with the publication of the HD-DVD encryption key number on the Internet, the Church of Scientology’s efforts to remove a video of Tom Cruise speaking about Scientology, and a zillion other examples. You simply can’t remove this sort of thing from the Internet. It won’t work, it only makes people curious, and the Internet moves too fast for this sort of thing to be effective.

Free speech on the Israeli internet

Sam — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 14:39:12 +0000

In Israel, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that a bill that would hold owners and editors of web sites legally liable for everything posted on their sites, including things in comments or talkback forums, has passed through committee phase and is on track to being approved by the full Parliament. The bill was introduced by the number-two member of Parliament from the Israel Beiteinu party, which is full of neoconservatives, hard-line right-wing immigrants, and modern revisionist Zionists. But the bill helpfully provides an out: sites can absolve themselves of responsibility by incriminating the offending posters. In other words, if you reveal your users’ private details, you’re off the hook.

This is, naturally, completely against the spirit of the open and free exchange of ideas—something that needs to be protected legally if a democracy is to be a true democracy. Just think back to the controversy last year in which Bill O’Reilly appeared to hold the Daily Kos responsible for comments posted on its site, equating the Kos with Nazism because of things that were pulled from the comments section. It’s simply common sense that you can’t make this inference: if it were valid, you could prove that Bill O’Reilly supported death threats against Senator Hillary Clinton, for example. But it’s more than a matter of common sense: it must be enshrined in law that speech belongs to the speaker, and therefore only the speaker can be held responsible for it. Otherwise, calling it ‘free speech’ is a useless term at best and doublespeak at worst.

If this bill passes and becomes Israeli law, it should be reckoned as confirmation—for those who still need it—that the modern Israeli ‘democracy’ is nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the assertion that Israel is a democracy is for the most part a myth peddled to Jews in the Diaspora for political and fundraising purposes. A democracy that inhibits its inhabitants’ free speech does not deserve to be called a democracy. We seem to hold other so-called enlightened Western countries—or at least aspiring enlightened Western countries to these standards. Israel must not be an exception.

[Hat-tip: Jerome, via Shmarya.]