YouTube censoring a video which only quotes the Quran

[aneeshm]

I don't know whether or not this has been discussed here, but I came across this recently, and thought it worthy of discussion.

Nick Gisburne is an outspoken atheist. In the past, he had made a number of videos critical of Christianity. Nobody cared about them.

Now, he makes a video which does nothing - and I mean nothing - except quote the Quran. It consists entirely of Quran quotes appearing and disappearing on a black background, accompanied by music. NOTHING else. No judgement, no criticism, nothing at all. Just quotes.

Somebody (probably some Muslim, who couldn't take it when his precious wasn't treated with the abject fear it demands) complains.

YouTube takes his videos down, and bans him.




Over-reaction? Hypocrisy? Or, more likely, plain fear on YouTube's part?

Opinions?

[Dinner]

Muslims do seem to over react when ever the inanities of religion are shown the light of day. Christians used to do this 50 years ago so maybe by 2050 the Muslims will catch up and realize they can't censor critical thinking.

One day everyone will have a chance to see how stupid religion is.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Muslims do seem to over react when ever the inanities of religion are shown the light of day. Christians used to do this 50 years ago so maybe by 2050 the Muslims will catch up and realize they can't censor critical thinking.

The Muslim calendar is at about the year 1300 or 1400 something.

[MJW]

It might have quoted out of context...

/knows jack about the Quran

[Kuciwalker]

You could do the same with the texts behind any religion or ideology. This is a silly exercise.

[Spiffor]

Re: YouTube censoring a video which only quotes the Quran

Originally posted by aneeshm
Over-reaction? Hypocrisy? Or, more likely, plain fear on YouTube's part?

Opinions?

YouTube is a young medium, and has little experience with offended people frothing at the mouth. In today's world, any kind of crap can offend anybody, which is one of the reasons for widespread self-censorship.

Now, experienced media choose what to self-censor, according to their commercial interests, past experience, and corporate culture. I imagine the guys at YouTube haven't been confronted too much to whiners yet, and thus they don't take the whine with the grain of salt it deserves.

Edit: in other words, basic caution by people who don't know what to do and what to not do in such a situation.

[Aeson]

I used to watch some of his videos. He got a lot of flaming from Christians and even Atheists/Agnostics too. Also he had a couple other videos taken down before, and so his account was closed on YouTube's 3-strike policy.

To say "nobody cared about [his previous videos]" is to ignore reality. The only reason this video was taken down was because it was seen by enough people to generate enough complaints... and the reason it was seen was because his other videos had generated enough fuss to get him somewhat in the spotlight.

YouTube seems very consistant in this type of thing. If you post incendiary crap, they don't care... unless enough people see your crap and complain. Then it doesn't matter what the subject of your video is, it's taken down.

They probably don't even review a lot of the videos for repeat offenders, judging by some of the stuff that gets banned. Just if it's flagged enough, it's gone. If you consistantly have videos taken down, they close your account. They aren't there to promote one view or another, they are there to make money. Watching 10 million videos a day to make sure everything that gets complained about is valid/invalid really isn't economical.

On that note, it's funny how these "censorship" issues always generates a frenzy of video responses criticizing YouTube, but YouTube allows those videos. Talk about a clear message... it's suprising how often people seem to miss it.

[snoopy369]

Yep...

And as is posted above, simply quoting from something is quite simple to accomplish a quite emotional and quite incorrect statement I could quote the Buddha's writings in ways that sanctioned quite substantial violence if I tried.

[lord of the mark]

hell, I could quote Nietsche and make him sound sane and reasonable.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You could do the same with the texts behind any religion or ideology. This is a silly exercise.

I'm threadjacking my own thread, but what if some religion or ideology is not really based on books?

[Arrian]

Then it's probably based on an oral tradition of things the Great Whatever said. Or things he supposedly said. Or something.

Even easier.

-Arrian

[Elok]

Or on the Upanishads, since I suspect Aneeshm's nudging the thread towards the Origins of Hindu Civilization again.

On a completely unrelated note: www.dospidersfart.com

EDIT: Hey, that used to link to a page featuring a picture of a spider with a big question mark underneath it. I guess whoever ran it got tired of maintaining it and sold it to one of those cyber-robber-baron types. Oh well.

BTW, there's not much sense in crying censorship here. YouTube is a company, not a government, and has every right to restrict what is said on its website for any reason whatsoever. It might not make sense, but there's nothing wrong with it.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
hell, I could quote Nietsche and make him sound sane and reasonable.

Hmm, to call BS or not....

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Then it's probably based on an oral tradition of things the Great Whatever said. Or things he supposedly said. Or something.

Even easier.

-Arrian

What if it rejects all authority?

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, there's not much sense in crying censorship here. YouTube is a company, not a government, and has every right to restrict what is said on its website for any reason whatsoever. It might not make sense, but there's nothing wrong with it.

Just because an entity has a legal right to do something doesn't mean there is "nothing wrong" with it doing so.