Congratulations! Your comment on Alpha Delta Pi Texas sorority's recruitment video has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 20 Badge!

i think you guys are missing the point of this video.this video was not produced for YOU.

this is a dog whistle video for those who identify as "right" leaning politically,and may be on the fence in regards to the alt-right.they may adhere to more conservative and traditional values but find the alt-right a tad to extreme,a tad too racist and neo-fascist.

and they most likely already find "leftists" and "liberals" offensive to their political sensibilities.

and here we have a video showing "lefties" perpetrating violence on innocent,rightwing by-standers..you know..their peeps.

so you watch with indignation and disbelief,while the rightwingers watches in horror and fear.this video is meant to do just that:instill fear and prompt a person to action and to view this action as righteous self-defense.

this is identity politics,pure and simple.

and now we have TWO extremists groups growing,and BOTH are convinced of their righteous convictions that THEY have a RIGHT..no..a DUTY..to perpetrate violence in the name of their ideology.

well,it is not EVERYBODY..

yeah..no shit sherlock.we get that.
not everyone is a neo-fascist,racist,super white nationalist.

nor are they all communists and black bloc anarchists.

but it IS those two groups who have adopted extremist ideologies that in their little pea brains have given them the moral authority to fuck some people up.

and THIS fucking video is a goddamn recruitment video for the neo-fascists!

communists and black bloc anarchists on my left..
racist neo fascists on my right..
here i am...
stuck in the middle...

*related=https://videosift.com/video/ANTIFA-is-a-major-gift-to-the-right

Looks like a recruiting video for a grass hockey team...

You can't pretend that all content is good content, though. Youtube needs to weed out the Isis recruitment videos and the kitten crushing, and they need to be able to reliably promise advertisers that their ads won't appear in front of that shit. YT has convinced creators that likes and views are actually what's important, but I bet YT can lose 100 large channels before they are willing to lose one large advertiser.

eric3579's link explains it, but there are options for advertisers who want to advertise on anything, regardless of content, and there are options for those who want to only stick to the approved material. Given the sheer volume of videos on YT, an automated system is necessary, and it's a good thing that they've now given users an option to appeal the non-monetization.

Youtube's advantage is not that they have content that isn't on tv, but that it's an established platform for viewing content on every device in existence. On the whole I think Youtube is still leveraging its significant power to provide a fairly open and unrestricted platform. If my company was being advertised there I'd probably want to have full freedom to choose the videos, and to demand, for example, that comments be turned off on every video with my ads.

Your video, The Norwegian Navy's recruiting video, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Actually, this is probably the Norwegian Army's recruiting video...

You load this page, the video title helpfully tells you that you're going to watch the English version of "No Respite", an ISIS recruitment video. You watch the ISIS recruitment video, and the description helpfully tells you when it was released and what alternative versions exist.

I understand the sentiment and i agree with it, but i don't think this is any examination or analysis. That surely would be a video or at least a description that highlighted what exactly about it was deceit, clever marketing, manipulative wording, etc. Without an analysis as part of the video i don't think any good that comes from the few who discuss it outweighs the bad that comes from rebroadcasting the message.

I personally think that whoever made it would want it to be spread and shared in as many places as possible so that it was as easy as possible to access. I don't think Liveleak should host it either.

Just what i think, and i have a lot of respect for you regardless.

bob, Trump has a point about "muslims" in the same way that Hitler had a point about "Jews".

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

I'm ok with the unicorn head, but what is up with the big black dildo in his right hand at 2:35?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I lost it on the unicorn head

Thanks for the promote.
In reply to this comment by Hybrid:
*promote

i'm 100% american, but IMHO this belongs in a terrorist recruiting video

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^SDGundamX:
I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.
As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.
>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.
I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.
But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.
For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".
You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.
A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.
But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.
The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.


The trouble is it doesn't quite work to lump things as either law enforcement or uniformed soldiers at war. That works only in as far as it makes sense to pursue criminals through domestic and foreign law enforcement, or to make war on foreign nations refusing to enforce the rule of law. Due to myriad political bramble bushes, there are many nations like Pakistan and Yemen who claim much broader borders than those in which their actual loyal police officers can safely operate. When criminals hide in the tribal regions of Yemen and Pakistan, even willing and co-operative governments in Pakistan and Yemen are unable to enforce the law on the criminals we want prosecuted. Do we just leave those criminals be then? Do we declare uniformed soldier on soldier war against the governments in Pakistan and Yemen? Do we demand they restart the aborted civil wars that have left their tribal regions effectively autonomous independent nations?

In my opinion the tribal regions in places like Yemen and Pakistan are effectively not sovereign parts of those nations. It's not politically expedient to declare that, but it is the way Pakistani and Yemeni governments have been handling and treating the regions all along. They are for all intents and purposes independent nations, which merely pay lip service to being a part of Pakistan or Yemen while jockeying internally for a stronger position for themselves. I see American policy as effectively stepping in and treating those tribal regions as independent nations, rather than as Yemeni or Pakistani territory. Thus America is at open war with these tribal regions for their support of Al-Qaida jihadists.

>> ^SDGundamX:

I know it is being nitpicky, but the reason Padilla could challenge was because he was an American citizen who had been designated by the president as an enemy combatant. You're right, they don't have to try every enemy combatant. I'm trying to find the actual court decision, but I could have sworn that it wasn't just a one-off thing for Padilla--the courts decided that any American has the right to challenge being put on the list in court.

As a fellow nitpicker, I don't mind when someone picks a nit. I don't contest any of what you say here. I actually thought that it went without saying that it hinged on Padilla's citizenship, and wasn't some sort of one-off decision.

>> ^SDGundamX:
As the video notes, al-Awlaki's family was indeed in the process of challenging it when the killing took place. I think that places the President in an awkward position from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to see where this goes if the family pursues this (sues for wrongful death or something), though I agree with you it seems like the odds are stacked in favor of the courts supporting the Presidential powers.

I don't see how they thought they might win such a challenge. All Al-Alwaki had to do was provide aid and comfort to the enemy, and it's over. And, well, his big thing was putting Al Qaeda recruitment videos on YouTube, so I'm thinking the government just plays one of those, and the case is over.

But in any case, his status when he was killed was still that of an enemy combatant. Now that he's dead, I suspect his legal status is no longer that of an enemy combatant, so there's nothing to challenge. And I suspect there's some Latin name for this, but I don't think courts are allowed to render something a crime by retroactively changing the legal status of things.

For example, say two people are getting a divorce, and the husband takes some jointly owned property with him when he moves out. Now suppose that when the divorce gets finalized, the court awards that property to the wife. The courts can't say "and it always was hers to begin with, so now we're charging you with larceny for taking it when you moved out".

You'd need to do something like that in order to make this killing a criminal act.

A wrongful death suit might fly though. But that's a civil suit, not a criminal charge.

But seriously, all this stuff is wrong. The President shouldn't have unilateral authority to declare people combatants and non-combatants. It should be uniformed members of the military of the nation we've declared war on. Everything else should be law enforcement, including chasing after terrorists.

The courts aren't going to make all that happen by fiat. That has to be a legislative effort, or it's just going to keep on going like this.