4 ms·
If I understand correctly, it's possible that someone in the State Department asked Google to temporarily take down a YouTube video, which they believed was act
by VikingCoder 11y ago
If I understand correctly, it's possible that someone in the State Department asked Google to temporarily take down a YouTube video, which they believed was actively inciting murderous violence against our embassies.
I'm okay with that.
If the government had attacked a private individual's server, and taken it down, that's different in my mind. But YouTube does and should reserve the right to not host content, yes?
Perhaps the Terms of Service have changed (they probably have), but they currently include rules like:
Violent or graphic content - It's not okay to post violent or gory content that's primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. If posting graphic content in a news or documentary context, please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the video. Don't encourage others to commit specific acts of violence.
Hateful content - Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.
Perhaps in the heat of the moment (and with lives on the line), everyone made a bad decision. The video is actually currently available, so maybe they have changed their minds about some or all of this.
But yeah, I'm okay with this. I may change my mind when more evidence comes out.
- zaroth 11y agoMy understanding is that there was never any rational basis or honest belief that a YouTube video was ever "inciting murderous violence against our embassies." It was a smoke screen to try to blunt the impact of what the expert reports at the time described as a well-planned terrorist attack. But I guess if you have to pick between gross incompetence or lies and cover-ups, you can take your pick, or perhaps the truth is just, "yes".
- Bud 11y agoYour folks have had years now to show any—any—proof of "lies and coverups", and they have utterly and laughably failed. So perhaps the truth is just, "no", instead.
- VikingCoder 11y agoLet's say they thought it was unlikely that the video was to blame. With lives on the line, how certain would you need to be, in order to ASK Google to temporarily take it down? 10%? 5%? And it's interesting to me to try to picture things from the other point of view... People think that Sec Clinton didn't believe the video was causing a problem, so she took a politically risky move and had the video taken down. If she didn't boast about taking the video down, then why would she do it? I guess people picture her like they Keystone Cops, or something. Or is there a rational way to explain this, that I'm just not seeing? Like: She arrogantly believed it would never come to light, so why the hell not ask to take it down, even though she believed it had 0 impact on the situation?
- zaroth 11y agoI don't know if taking down the video was just part of perpetuating the narrative that the video was somehow relevant, or if they actually believed the video was relevant and thought taking it down could somehow help matters, or maybe they even thought taking down the video was "right" in any case because, heck our govt is so keen on censoring "offensive" speech... My only point is the choices are "dumb" and "dumber" so it's pretty depressing no matter what you choose to believe they were thinking at the time!