OK, this is super fucked-up.

YouTube becomes Big Brother!?

As of right now there are 145 video responses to this video on YouTube, almost all are copies of this one as is requested in the video. This is really starting to go viral (as it should).

Not a big conspiracy, just YouTube are pussies. This is their standard response to complaints.

Frankly it's your fault, all of you, for demanding moderation (read: censorship) of all your online communities.

^ I didn't demand squat.

one of the millions of accounts on youtube got suspended less than one day ago (!) and now the whole world needs to know about it and revolt against the 'act of utter utter madness' even though NOBODY knows how and why this has happened.

what are we gonna do if the whole internet will be down for a day, blow up the planet?

(lets just pray they got permission to use that pink floyd song...)

This is my short complaint which I sent to youtube:

"The user jamesrandifoundation has been suspended.
I suspect that you caved in from complaints from homeopathy proponents or the like. James Randi's criticism of this in his videos is always well founded and within all rights. I urgently call for you to reinstate this account and restrain from caving in to unfounded complaints in the future."

Gorillaman, I'm ok with cleaning up the mess a little, cause I really just don't wanna see all the shittalk.

But I am very concerned about their method of completely blocking downvoted comments. To the point where you can't choose to view them if hidden and see for yourself why it got downranked. I really wonder what they think constitutes a free and open exchange of ideas, as their site is ought for. I'll be mentioning this in my complaint...

^paul4dirt
The point is that there is such an obvious lack of grounds to suspend this account that it's almost certainly because of an unfounded complaint. This is not an isolated case either. Youtube policy is beginning to look like the DMCA, in that they are automatically responding to complaints without checking its validity. Such a policy is all to easily abused.

Speaking of the DMCA, YouTube can suck my balls. They seriously need to scrap their instant content identification bullshit. I can't upload a home video of a cat eating a can of tuna without getting insta-hammered by NBC Universal.

burdy, c'mon mate, don't mention cats eating cans of tuna without showing us some footage. that's top 15 material right there.

>> ^burdturgler:
Speaking of the DMCA, YouTube can suck my balls. They seriously need to scrap their instant content identification bullshit. I can't upload a home video of a cat eating a can of tuna without getting insta-hammered by NBC Universal.

phil plait...

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/30/youtube-suspension-of-the-jref-account/

Every time something like this happens, (suspended YT accounts) people cry about censorship and YT being cowards etc etc. I think its much more likely this is simply a bunch of religious wackos flagging videos and bitching to YT, and of course YT doesnt have time to go through all the videos and shit like that, so they just close the account, its probably even an automated process. ie: "if account X has Y number of flags, close account."

^ ...and that's exactly what i'm complaining about.

More info please. I'm going to dig around to find out why, but the description nor the video really explained anything.

By all means dig, but I doubt you'll find anything. The JREF won't say anything until the issue is resolved.

Guys, think of the timing, before you get all up in arms, is this just a joke?

OH NOES! Some old dude got BANT! So what? Guess I'm missing out on what in the hell the big deal is.

How to censor whoever you dislike (I think):
Method A:
1. Create 30 youtube accounts via 30 different proxy servers.
2. Flag a user's videos from each of those accountgraterhe timing is done right it will be indistinguishable from distinct users)
3. Sit back and watch that user get b&.
(This whole process could be automated with a script that just asks you for the captcha solutions)

Method B:
1. Post on a forum full of like-minded people who also dislike that user, and get them to all report him.
2. Sit back and watch that user get b&.




Youtube really needs to fix their automatic censorship junk.
They won't fix the broken system unless it becomes a HUGE problem, which means they're not gonna fix it until mayhem occurs as a result of someone posting such a script publicly.

They could start fortifying their defenses by allowing each IP address a maximum of 3 flaggings per year, and ignoring all subsequent flaggings coming from that IP address. They could ignore flaggings from all known open proxies and tor nodes. They could ignore flaggings from anyone who didn't actually watch the video in question. They could require that the greater of 50 or 50% of viewers flag a video before it will be taken down. They could permanently ignore flaggings from IP addresses of flaggers who submit fallacious flaggings (as determined by being the 1 flagger among a million viewers).
A somewhat better defense against fallacious one-guy-in-a-garage-with-a-script censorship would be a human volunteer network akin to wikipedia, but my preferred solution is to abandon censorship altogether (information wants to be free). If you don't like something, don't watch it! Copyright? Bah!

^jwray

Oops, I upvoted your comment before I saw your bashing of copyright. In an undeniably capitalistic world, copyright laws are one of the best ways to assure that people have the incentive to make new and interesting information.

By the way, I knew some internet censorship sensationalism would make me hit top 15 at last. Thanks for the votes!

*Viral?

Invocations (viral) cannot be called by Razor because Razor is not privileged - sorry.

This just could be one of those rash, reactionary bans YouPoop is known for doing after concerted efforts on the part of those deluded, ignorant festival he(Randi) actively makes intellectual mince meat of. The type of ban that's swiftly reinstated afterward with a written apology and some CVS bought chocolates. An egregious mistake, yes. Intentional censorship, probably not.

If Pat Condell can get his channel back, surely the Randi will. Surely!

>> ^Haldaug:
^jwray
Oops, I upvoted your comment before I saw your bashing of copyright. In an undeniably capitalistic world, copyright laws are one of the best ways to assure that people have the incentive to make new and interesting information.


Perhaps copyright should only be used against people who try to SELL copyrighted works without authorization and without substantial value-added derivation.

Good authors were compensated for their work long before copyright existed, and continue to be compensated after it became utterly unenforceable.

>> ^BicycleRepairMan:
I think its much more likely this is simply a bunch of religious wackos flagging videos and bitching to YT, and of course YT doesnt have time to go through all the videos and shit like that, so they just close the account, its probably even an automated process. ie: "if account X has Y number of flags, close account."


I think that's exactly what it is and I've had a mirror of the video up as well, one of the first. They suspended Thunderfoot a while back and they've hit others as well for what seems to be the same reason. Just get enough wack jobs to decide they want someone shut up and YouTube goes and does that for them.

I've got no problem with calling that censorship. Yeah it's private property and we have no "right" to free speech, but if they want to keep their reputation and our business they might want to consider it a bit anyway. At least justify the suspensions according to their own posted rules, knock off this unexplained crap. Even the people being suspended sometimes aren't sure why.

Playing devil's advocate here, but is it strictly speaking really true that YouTube should be "open and fair"? Isn't shutting down accounts something that is well within their rights?

Ofcourse, I do agree that the concepts of downranking and flagging have ever really produced fair content, anywhere. The easiest solution would probably be to scrap any kind of flagging altogether, or have some kind of independent party look at flagged video's (which sounds too expensive).

^ It's well within their rights, it's their system, however probably an abuse of their policies and so not within their policies and thus an accident. Alternatively they intentionally banned james randi for bringing truth to the world, and in that case they're attacking the wrong target, because the internet fucking loves james randi.

It seems like the user has been reinstated. So what are you waiting for? Go get your brain embiggened!

That's what I was just coming to post, the account has been reinstated. And this is a good lesson for those who cry that complaints don't do any good. The hell they don't. This is the second or third one I've seen reinstated within days when the suspension was supposed to be weeks and there were probably others before I started paying attention.

It's a business, with profit motives and posted rules. When they don't play by their own posted rules we're *supposed* to raise hell and expect them to justify things according to their own rules. Customer feedback does work.

Edit for more info. In the Thunderfoot case the above applied, in this case not so much it seems. YouTube was within their rights but better communication on what's going on seems needed to separate cases like this from ones like the Thunderfoot issue. Video from Randi just released on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zngwTpkogeE