YouTube gets it wrong on online hate

ANDRE OBOLER
The closing of Palestinian Media Watch channel is one example of how the website’s policies are inconsistent and only selectively enforced.
Justice Louis Brandeis of the US Supreme Court once said “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
This is often used to justify “more speech” as the only solution to “hate speech.”
In November, as parliamentarians and experts from over 40 countries gathered in Canada for the second meeting of the Interparliamentary Coalition for Combatting Anti-Semitism, there was a growing concern at rising anti-Semitism, and an increased acceptance that more than sunlight was needed in response.

At the gathering, I presented as part of an experts panel on hate speech online. One point I raised was the problem of YouTube videos that do not by themselves constitute hate, but which attract hateful comments.
An example I gave was a YouTube clip of Sacha Baron Cohen’s song “Throw the Jew Down the Well.”
The most popular comment on the video the morning I presented, as voted by YouTube viewers, read: “Lets [sic] genocide them by burning them! But this time, lets [sic] actually do it.”
Should Sacha Baron Cohen or YouTube take this clip down if this is what it inspires? Should the comments be closed to viewers? The answer is unclear, but allowing this to continue is not a good thing and seeing how popular it is leaves me feeling very uncomfortable.
THERE IS also a clear problem with hate groups, such as “theytnazism” on YouTube.
I reported this to YouTube in February, and on November 22 – 10 months later – it was still active. The group includes a “list of people we hate and we want to kill.” It was a short list of “1. Blacks, 2. Jews, 3. Indians.”
I then included it in a set of slides for a conference on anti-Semitism run by the World Zionist Organisation in France earlier this month and suddenly the group was gone. I doubt that was a coincidence, especially as the rest of my collection of similar groups (reported at the same time) are still active. One of these, with giant swastikas in the background, declares it is God’s will to murder all non-Aryans.
The problem is not that YouTube never steps in. The problem is they are liable to step in only when there is public exposure of content they wrongly ignored, or when political pressure is applied.
YouTube also seems to have started giving in to pressure to remove videos and channels that expose and educate against hate.
A few months ago, for example, efforts were made to shut down the YouTube presence of the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). The institute provides the English-speaking world with insight into the Mideast media. Some of the exposure is not welcome by those who say one thing in English to a Western audience and another thing at home.
The MEMRI debacle seems to have been resolved, but YouTube is now going after Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) which fulfills a similar role, focused exclusively on the Palestinian media.
PMW monitors, translates and shares examples of incitement. It was PMW that exposed the use of a Mickey Mouse character inciting hate and violence on the Hamas TV children’s show “The Pioneers of Tomorrow.”
That story created shock waves around the world, leading to discussions in the Western mainstream media and at the UN of the link between incitement in the media and terrorism.
PMW’s violation appears to be that it was posting “hate material.”
There is no doubt that it was. However, like MEMRI, that material was not shared for the purpose of incitement, but to expose and counter the spread of hate. Some commentators have speculated that it is not the hate against Jews, Israelis and Americans – as shown in MEMRI and PMW videos – that is the problem, but rather the fact that the videos might cause a backlash against those promoting such hate.
Any argument that uses free speech to prevent the exposure of hate speech is inherently deeply flawed.
YouTube needs to get its act together.
What it has created is a haven for hate, devoid of sunlight. Its policy seems inconsistent, ineffective and only selectively enforced. It is working against community expectations and the public interest. Ignoring illegal content, while removing the very sunlight needed to expose those spreading hate, creates a volatile environment.
Social media is built on concepts of security and trust. When these start to go, opportunities for competitors are created. It may be too early to call this the beginning of the end for YouTube, but unless it gets its policies right, and properly enforces them, we may well see this megalith begin to slide downhill.
The writer is an expert in social media and online hate. He is director of the Community Internet Engagement Project and Co-Chair of the Online Anti-Semitism working group for the Global Forum to Combat Anti-Semitism.

via docstalk.blogspot.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

Saudi King Abdullah may have plans to move the controversial Ground Zero mosque to the site of the now-shuttered St. Vincent's Medical Center - NYPOST.com

Remember the joke that we should move a Gay bar next door to the WTC Mosque?

This will be interesting!

I'm sure the people in the Village will just love this. Maybe the Saudi King can also give the Village Voice Gay Escorts a showcase!

Saudi King Abdullah (pictured) reportedly 

wants to move the 

Ground Zero mosque 

to shuttered 

St. Vincent's Hospital in the Village.

DUDLEY GAFFIN

Saudi-linked lawyer.

be sure to Egg this guy on the street

via nypost.com good Muslims via screamingqueens.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

U.N. - India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia propose Internet NWO in wake of Wikileaks. BAD IDEA!

In light of the Wikileaks disclosures, a group of countries, led by Brazil, is pushing for the United Nations to regulate the internet (Hat Tip: Instapundit).

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

What could go wrong?

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.
Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a "takeover" of the internet.
India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.
However, Australia, US, UK, Belgium and Canada and attending business and community representatives argued there were risks in forming yet another working group that might isolate itself from the industry, community users and the general public.
"My concern is that if we were to make a move to form a governmental-only body then that would send a very strong signal to civil society that their valuable contribution was not required or was not being looked for," an un-named Australian representative told the meeting.
Debate on the creation of a new inter-governmental body stemmed from a UN Economic and Social Council resolution 2010/2 of 19 July.
The resolution invited the UN Secretary-General "to convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues."
Much debate concerned the meaning of "enhanced cooperation" and whether a new inter-governmental body was required. Participants also debated the roles of existing organisations - such as the Internet Governance Forum, ICANN and the ITU.
The IGF - an organisation that informs the UN but makes no decisions - is running close to the end of a five-year mandate, due to expire at the end of the year.
The likes of ISOC, ICANN and more recently the World Information Technology and Services Alliance (WITSA) have recently expressed concerns [PDF] that a working panel to decide on the future of the IGF has been limited to representatives from member-states.
"Australia is a very strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum," the unidentified Australian UN representative said at the New York meeting this week. "That is very much due to the multi-stake-holder approach of the IGF. It is an inclusive process."
Australia's Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said that Australian Government welcomed the resolution of the Second Committee of the United Nation General Assembly (UNGA) to extend the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for a further five years.
The DBCDE said it would like to see the organisation retain an open and participatory membership.
"Australia has always supported the participation of civil society and the private sector in the IGF and regards their participation as being integral to the IGF's success," a spokesman told iTnews.

via itnews.com.au

Flickr’d
On the first full day of Julian Assange’s release from imprisonment, we now learn that some members of the United Nations want to introduce some sort of worldwide Internet regulation. That’s nice. But don’t worry: this isn’t a “takeover,” or anything scary like that. It’s simply to ensure that we never see something like Wikileaks ever again. A bit late for that, no?
All of this went down on Wednesday, with Brazil’s UN delegation proposing “global standards” that would, in effect, regulate the Internet.
The proposal in the obtuse verbiage of the UN would:

convene open and inclusive consultations involving all Member States and all other stakeholders with a view to assisting the process towards enhanced cooperation in order to enable Governments on an equal footing to carry out their roles and responsibilities in respect of international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet but not of the day-to-day technical and operational matters that do not impact upon those issues.

I seem to recall Brazil throwing up another Internet-related stink a few years ago vis-à-vis the .xxx top-level domain. A sort of, “We can’t have a dot x x x because that will encourage the proliferation of pornography.”
As if the Internet isn’t already swarming with pornography.

via crunchgear.com

encouraging cooperation between nations should be the job of the UN. this stuff about taking over is what scares me

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

FOX Claims Penélope Cruz Will Bear “Anchor Baby,” Latino Republicans Protest

Our political discourse suffers from an impasse prohibiting genuine progress. That impasse is political correctness or, more accurately, cultural Marxism. It is the priority of emotion over reason. It is the assertion that, if someone is offended by an argument or the language used to articulate it, the argument is inherently incorrect. It is a retarding force upon intellect.

Political correctness is an effective force because most decent people do not want to offend and will make what seem to be reasonable concessions in order to maintain civility. There is also a tendency to confuse arguments based on emotion with arguments appealing to emotion. For instance, the argument against the Ground Zero Mosque appeals to the emotional impact its construction will have upon survivors of the Islamist attacks of September 11, 2001. That is not the argument’s basis, however. If Imam Rauf’s claim that he desires to build bridges between the West and Islam is correct, his insistence upon a course which agitates is illogical.
Political correctness is used like a sucker punch to unduly handicap one side of a debate. It is a tactic which emerged from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century, with the objective of destroying our existing culture. We must therefore wonder why an ostensibly conservative organization would employ the tactic.
¡Somos Republicans!, a Hispanic group, has taken issue with Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” in a headline referencing actress Penélope Cruz. She and husband Javier Bardem are opting to deliver their son in the United States rather than in Spain.

[Journalist Christina] Tárrega explained that the actors’ wish is for their son to have dual citizenship, and since the two own an estate in Hollywood — and Spain grants citizenship to foreign born if a parent is born in Spain — it is quite a convenient situation.

The citizenship status of Cruz and Bardem is not reported. Their status is relevant toward determining whether or not Fox News Latino’s use of the term “anchor baby” is accurate. However, ¡Somos Republicans!’ objection is not based on this criteria.

The term “anchor baby” is equivalent to other defamatory terms such as “wetback”, “pickaninny” and “tar baby”.  Media outlets should never use these demeaning terms in connection with precious babies, and it is unfortunate that we have to inform FOX News of this when they are typically viewed as conservative.

Next: The difference between defamatory and descriptive…

via newsrealblog.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

No military option against Iran?

I live in America full time and I hate to tell my friends I don know if I ever will leave. With all the hate crimes against Jews in the U.S. I still see it as safer.

Leftist Gideon Levy argues that the Carmel forest fire shows why Israel has no military option against Iran.

Every cloud has a silver lining: Maybe lessons will be learned from the fire. Not only fire extinguishers, fire trucks and new planes, but also new thinking, and fire retardants that douse the really big fire.
The home front's weakness should teach us that Israel apparently has no military option. This is a much more fateful lesson than all the fire's other lessons, and it should be dealt with. The apocalyptic descriptions of a missile attack on the home front if Israel attacks Iran or Lebanon appear even more apocalyptic in light of Israel's conduct when handling a medium-sized forest fire. Discussions on our future, therefore, should move to the arena that Israelis favor: the security arena.
Leave aside human rights and the occupation, don't worry about morality and justice, forget about peace as a leftist delusion and ignore the Palestinian problem. The issue is Israel's security interests, perhaps even existential interests.
The next wars will be home-front wars. This time the Israeli home front will be hit in a way we have never experienced. The first Gulf war and the Second Lebanon War were only the movie trailer for what could happen. An attack of thousands of missiles, as predicted by experts, will create a reality Israel will find hard to withstand. It isn't equipped for it, as we saw on the Carmel, and it isn't prepared for it, as we saw in the Lebanon war.
Any Israeli leader, even an adventurist and a former commando, should understand that the attack option is not really an option. It's true that we succeeded in a few bombings in the past, but nothing lasts forever and the Scuds against us won't always be hollow. A thousand new fire trucks and even the Iron Dome missile defense system will not provide protection. You can't build a fortress for every citizen. This leads to the second, unavoidable conclusion, which should penetrate very deeply, not only among diplomats and commanders, but also among the many warmongers among us: the only existential option is integrating into the region (a term coined decades ago by Uri Avnery ).

Levy is one of Israel's most extreme Leftist writers, and his article is obviously written with a note of glee. But he raises points that do need to be answered. First, the IDF has changed drastically since the debacle of the Second Lebanon War. It is no longer run by pacifists like Dan Halutz (who was the chief of staff) and Amir "Comrade" Peretz (who was Defense Minister). Even under the Olmert government, the IDF had changed, as was shown by the alleged destruction of the al-Kibar reactor in Syria, and more explicitly by Operation Cast Lead.
Second, there is no option of 'integrating into the region.' Levy and Uri Avnery and Israel's other flaming Leftists willfully ignore the fact that Israel does not have and has never had an option of 'integrating into the region.' The Arab states - and particularly the 'Palestinians' - wish to extirpate our existence. No more and no less.
Third, yes the fire ought to raise fears in all Israelis that we are not equipped to cope with the fallout from Hezbullah and Hamas missiles. Hopefully, the Home Front will now deal with that situation. And given the havoc apparently wreaked by Stuxnet, we will apparently have more time than we expected to try to improve on that situation.

via israelmatzav.blogspot.com

I saw many forums on facebook talking about the fires. I stayed out of them for the most part. I was thinking to myself... what could I say? "I'm sorry"? I hope Carl is right about Stuxnet's effectiveness. Moving to Israel really is a leap of faith.