@lucky760 @newtboy

Censorship according to the internet: "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts."

I see public internet communication as a constantly published work of the human intellect, therefore all digitally published and public communication is media and therefore subject to censorship -- and Videosift now offers a form of individual censorship to its members, not simply the acceptable ignore feature which allows you to check the communication if you so desire.

It bothers me that people would completely block out other people's published work -- and not just their published work but their very existence -- for the same reason that it bothers me that people ban books I don't read at libraries. Mein Kampf is still a book, a poorly written book which glorifies hatred, but still an important part of human literature.

You can choose not to read it, but you can't censor it's existence from reality. Not without burning every copy and then erasing every digital copy. Though perhaps in the future an algorithm will be available which does something similar on an account wide level, visually removing all unfavorable literature and blocking people's facial features, making it so that that person and their communication might as well not exist. But I wouldn't want it to be nullified from my vision while walking through a library, anymore than I would want to nullify a person's existence who offends me; and by extension I believe the freedom to exist and to be acknowledged is an important freedom that we take for granted. You should NOT be able to remove someone from your personal existence. Yes, there are laws in place to do this, but they require criminal abuse to come into effect.

There are greater implications of this type of censorship, that perhaps do not apply directly to the Sift in it's short temporal existence and small community. But it's still an offence to my sense of justice in the realm of communication that such a thing is possible. Even the < ahref="http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-04/14/google-algorithm-predicts-trolls-antisocial-behaviour">troll algorithm isn't intended to ban or censor trolls outright, but rather to detect problematic people and find a way to limit the harm they do to a community without removing them from a community.

I think it's one thing if you want to prevent someone from posting on your profile -- which is what should actually be an option (if it isn't already) -- but to silence their voice in video comments is a high form of censorship that I fundamentally stand against. I quite enjoyed some of what Chilngalera had to say; not always and often he offended me -- but not enough to desire to remove him from my existence. I don't think anyone except violent/sexual offenders deserve that. If he vocalizedd violence and sexual threats, why would he still be in the community at all? And if he's banned, why do you need to have an option to block out people's existence?

I was employed for many years to police several massive online roleplaying games, and an ignore feature was a widely accepted form of preventing harassment -- but when it came to erasing the person's avatar or their character's physical body from the game, we always voted against such outright blotting out of a human being. Our rational was and is to this day that if the person cannot communicate to you via explicit words, their presence is an acceptable form of nonverbal communication and a reminder that they are a human being in the community, even if verbally hobbled -- because at that point they have no means of articulating hurtful words.

But to erase that person's presence is a greater act against both the human spirit and human expression as to be a reprehensible act in an of itself. Unless they commit such atrocious behavior in the form of real life physical threats of violence, constant racial/sexual slurs (in a bucket system of soft banning leading up to a permanent ban) or other forms of insidiousness, preserving their humanity is more important to a community than erasing another human being.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Smarter-Every-Day-Devil-Facial-Tumor-Disease

Smarter Every Day - Devil Facial Tumor Disease has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is. ;-)

My dogs, and almost every dog I've ever known that doesn't have medical problems causing facial deformity or paralysis, DOES smile when happy. They also wag their tails. If you can't see emotion in a dog's face, I think you need serious therapy (or a new dog). It's clearly there to see.
You picked a cat (cats, who normally don't show much facial emotion) with a facial deformity to 'prove' your point that animals don't show emotion? OK, well, then lets look at Steven Hawking (or any severe facially paralyzed stroke victim)...he never shows emotion, so that proves that people don't smile either, right? That's how I read your argument.

And again....does this... :-) ...have a smile? But it's just a drawing and has no emotion to display...so how can it smile by your definition? It can smile because a smile is upturned mouth corners, and not necessarily an anthropomorphic display of emotion through facial muscles.
EDIT: Ascribing emotional content to a smile is how YOU INTERPRET the smile. The mouth shape IS the smile.

It may look to us like this gecko is HAPPY, but that's mostly because it's mouth is smiling. I think that's the argument you may want to be making instead of the 'animals don't smile' argument.

It may look to us like this gecko is smiling, but only because we interpret his mouth line as a smile. This animal does not show its emotions like we do. For example, dogs do not smile, when they are happy, they waggle with their tail. In fact, they do not smile at all. Grumpy cat may be in bliss, but we only see its "sad" mouth. Awww, poor cat is sad!

Therefore ... it does look very cute, but still ... this is not a smile. And it does NOT count as a smile, because this animal does not show its emotions through movement of its facial muscles

Upvote for much facial hair of manliness..

I couldn't get past the first 19 seconds. She is way overacting with all those ridiculous facial expressions.

Unwatchable.

No, don't overthink it. It's not some deep complicated reaction to artificial gender\comedy\social issues you read about in blogs, it's just stale humor to me. I'm sure many find her deadpan delivery of facial cream-pie queef soiled panty jokes to be ground-breaking. If Eisenhower was in the White House I'm sure I would think so too but it's been done a billion times.

If you don't laugh at the "why did the chicken cross the road" joke does that make you an animal rights activist?

I understand the sentiment and don't hold it against you, but you are absolutely incorrect.

I can't stress enough that this is exactly what an actual Asperger's self-harm breakdown looks like. I was shocked at how exactly I recognized her every action and facial expression.

Please cease all doubts about the legitimacy of this video for her sake and everyone else who suffers from or loves someone with Asperger's.

Understood. And it is upsetting to watch and comforting to see the dog's reaction. But on the other hand this is the first I'm reading that self-abuse, depressive episodes and panic attacks are now included in Aspergers, so I question the accuracy of the video's title. Or else I have been skimming the subject all this time, which is entirely possible.

I always read about it being socially inept, not being able to interpret facial reactions and body language of others, retaining reams of trivial data in memory (serial numbers, license plates), sitting awkwardly, being committed to certain routines, in general being smart and odd, etc.

People seem to cherry pick some aspect and now they have a "touch" of Aspergers, or they are now an "Aspie" just like their favorite character on "Big Bang Theory".

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by blackfox42. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Multi-Facial-Vin-Diesel-Short

You'd find yourself quite wrong.
A deaf person can feel the music. Turn it up and the vibrations are there, the beat and the tones.

It's just the words that are lost, and this type of interpretation brings it together. Above that, it's also not just the words, but the attitude and facial expressions which convey a strong feeling to the message of the music.

Mesmerising! I can't read ASL, but her dancing, facial expressions and air piano are really engaging. I'd love to see here do translation for hip-hop shows more often. I watched a second time just to see if I could figure out a bit of the ASL. I suspect she's paraphrasing, at least for a lot of the slang.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I thought that too, but I think he also has a way of holding his head and changing his facial muscles - he looks like Gandalf and Harrison Ford in the other videos too.