March 31, 2009 82 Comments

YouTube is Not the Internet but She Has a Point

I came across this video by Laura Ross in my Facebook. It seems that YouTube suspended her account for reasons unknown and unexplained to her. What follows is quite an interesting video about the nature of free speech, discourse, dissent, profanity, and the censorship of our voice.

My question, for when you’re done with the video: YouTube is a commercial property. It’s not the Internet. But it’s where we go right now and use the tools to express ourselves (amongst other properties). How is this voice being protected, or is it?

The conversation makes me think of Gnomedex 2007 presenter Robert Steele, who told us that we should cobble together our own networks using Cisco routers and create our own net experiences. Maybe he was on to something.

But think about that: pretty much all the tools we use are there are the behest of other corporations: YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and all those places could choose to roll up the carpet tomorrow. If you lost it all there, what would that mean for you?

This isn’t to be considered lightly.

ChrisBrogan.com runs on the Genesis Framework

Genesis Theme Framework

The Genesis Framework empowers you to quickly and easily build incredible websites with WordPress. Whether you're a novice or advanced developer, Genesis provides you with the secure and search-engine-optimized foundation that takes WordPress to places you never thought it could go.

With automatic theme updates and world-class support included, Genesis is the smart choice for your WordPress website or blog.

Become a StudioPress Affiliate

Newer Comments →
  • Anonymous

    That’s a great message Chris. But like anything else we do in life we always have a copy or at least the original locked away somewhere. It shouldn’t be any different on the Internet. But It is food for thought thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

  • Anonymous

    That’s a great message Chris. But like anything else we do in life we always have a copy or at least the original locked away somewhere. It shouldn’t be any different on the Internet. But It is food for thought thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

  • http://www.level343.com/article_archive/ Gabriella

    That’s a great message Chris. But like anything else we do in life we always have a copy or at least the original locked away somewhere. It shouldn’t be any different on the Internet. But It is food for thought thanks for bringing this to everyone’s attention.

  • http://www.fabulousphotogifts.co.uk Fabulous Photo Gifts

    Hi Chris

    A big fan as you know.

    Mandy and I had this discussion the other week strangely enough in an attempt to thrash out some next marketing moves and work out what really would be best.

    SO we considered this…How would we conduct our business and attract new business if the Internet didn’t exist? How would we spread the word so to speak?

    We came up with some useful insights about direct (leaflet) marketing etc but its the same old problem… cost. I think because we have the website set up now and we have such an seo’d search position, apart from the upkeep and website building / expansion, we have very little marketing direct costs.

    It was hard to envisage a model without the internet but a useful exercise none-the-less. We didn’t draw any conclusions (as yet) apart from we will keep doing what we’re doing – adding new products, keeping in touch with our previous customers etc and spread the word at whatever opportunity.

  • http://www.fabulousphotogifts.co.uk Fabulous Photo Gifts

    Hi Chris

    A big fan as you know.

    Mandy and I had this discussion the other week strangely enough in an attempt to thrash out some next marketing moves and work out what really would be best.

    SO we considered this…How would we conduct our business and attract new business if the Internet didn’t exist? How would we spread the word so to speak?

    We came up with some useful insights about direct (leaflet) marketing etc but its the same old problem… cost. I think because we have the website set up now and we have such an seo’d search position, apart from the upkeep and website building / expansion, we have very little marketing direct costs.

    It was hard to envisage a model without the internet but a useful exercise none-the-less. We didn’t draw any conclusions (as yet) apart from we will keep doing what we’re doing – adding new products, keeping in touch with our previous customers etc and spread the word at whatever opportunity.

  • http://www.fabulousphotogifts.co.uk Fabulous Photo Gifts

    Hi Chris

    A big fan as you know.

    Mandy and I had this discussion the other week strangely enough in an attempt to thrash out some next marketing moves and work out what really would be best.

    SO we considered this…How would we conduct our business and attract new business if the Internet didn’t exist? How would we spread the word so to speak?

    We came up with some useful insights about direct (leaflet) marketing etc but its the same old problem… cost. I think because we have the website set up now and we have such an seo’d search position, apart from the upkeep and website building / expansion, we have very little marketing direct costs.

    It was hard to envisage a model without the internet but a useful exercise none-the-less. We didn’t draw any conclusions (as yet) apart from we will keep doing what we’re doing – adding new products, keeping in touch with our previous customers etc and spread the word at whatever opportunity.

  • http://www.KolbeMarket.com BarbaraKB

    You are brave to post this, Chris. Thank you.

  • http://www.KolbeMarket.com BarbaraKB

    You are brave to post this, Chris. Thank you.

  • http://jessicagottlieb.com Jessica Gottlieb

    Oh gosh, my (ridiculously smart and connected) brother just lectured me about not using gmail any longer and actually owning my content.

    The internet makes us all beholden to one another, but it is time for me to think about limiting that.

  • http://jessicagottlieb.com Jessica Gottlieb

    Oh gosh, my (ridiculously smart and connected) brother just lectured me about not using gmail any longer and actually owning my content.

    The internet makes us all beholden to one another, but it is time for me to think about limiting that.

  • http://jessicagottlieb.com Jessica Gottlieb

    Oh gosh, my (ridiculously smart and connected) brother just lectured me about not using gmail any longer and actually owning my content.

    The internet makes us all beholden to one another, but it is time for me to think about limiting that.

  • http://www.mindspring.com/~dbholzel/1001.html David H.

    You’re right: YouTube isn’t the internet. And Laura Ross isn’t free speech. She’s vague and wordy and wearisome and seems to be most worried about free speech on YouTube when it concerns criticism of Israel.

    But this episode does demonstrate the shrinking of the public space, despite the internet. What we need to do is work to assure that the public space — both rl and virtual — is enlarged and secured.

    One outcome is that it would deprive Laura Ross of her sanctimonious complaint and menacing hints about why she was banned.

  • http://www.mindspring.com/~dbholzel/1001.html David H.

    You’re right: YouTube isn’t the internet. And Laura Ross isn’t free speech. She’s vague and wordy and wearisome and seems to be most worried about free speech on YouTube when it concerns criticism of Israel.

    But this episode does demonstrate the shrinking of the public space, despite the internet. What we need to do is work to assure that the public space — both rl and virtual — is enlarged and secured.

    One outcome is that it would deprive Laura Ross of her sanctimonious complaint and menacing hints about why she was banned.

  • http://www.wholerevolution.com Owen Marcus

    Our Internet can be the most liberating invention of us humans or it can devolve to the most repressive. Thank you for supporting our voice.

  • http://www.wholerevolution.com Owen Marcus

    Our Internet can be the most liberating invention of us humans or it can devolve to the most repressive. Thank you for supporting our voice.

  • http://www.mindspring.com/~dbholzel/1001.html David H.

    You’re right: YouTube isn’t the internet. And Laura Ross isn’t free speech. She’s vague and wordy and wearisome and seems to be most worried about free speech on YouTube when it concerns criticism of Israel.

    But this episode does demonstrate the shrinking of the public space, despite the internet. What we need to do is work to assure that the public space — both rl and virtual — is enlarged and secured.

    One outcome is that it would deprive Laura Ross of her sanctimonious complaint and menacing hints about why she was banned.

  • http://www.wholerevolution.com Owen Marcus

    Our Internet can be the most liberating invention of us humans or it can devolve to the most repressive. Thank you for supporting our voice.

  • http://www.theblacktechreport.com Jayson Flint

    Well we all know that as the net grows and sites where you can place user created content evolves, we will see gains and losses. No matter who, what, when, or where? All of your content needs to be saved somewhere other than a site you upload content to for general consumption.

    Sounds funny but all the podcast I have ever created are on my site, yes bandwidth is high, but I would not have it any other way. People need to look at the bigger picture objections are just that objections. Unless you own site/service you can’t expect them to treat you as you would treat yourself.

    Thanks for the reminder, by posting this Chirs

  • http://www.theblacktechreport.com Jayson Flint

    Well we all know that as the net grows and sites where you can place user created content evolves, we will see gains and losses. No matter who, what, when, or where? All of your content needs to be saved somewhere other than a site you upload content to for general consumption.

    Sounds funny but all the podcast I have ever created are on my site, yes bandwidth is high, but I would not have it any other way. People need to look at the bigger picture objections are just that objections. Unless you own site/service you can’t expect them to treat you as you would treat yourself.

    Thanks for the reminder, by posting this Chirs

  • Timo

    The brutal truth is you have no voice on sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc… You only have as much voice as they are willing to allow you to have they own the servers and pay the bills.

    To that point you really dont have any voice on the internet that someone isnt allowing you to have. All the backbones, NOCs and switching stations are owned by someone somewhere and i bet they are out to make a buck. They could roll up the carpets anytime as well. We’d all like to think that the internet is a free for all, but in reality we know it isnt.

    A good friend and google fanboy gave me a good proverbial punch in the gut the other day as I railed on the overuse and blind trust people put in the google monolith. When i finished by dissertation he calmly said “you do realize that the line you’re on, the server your site is on and the email you’re pulling down is someone elses… right?”

    Consider me Pwned.

  • Timo

    The brutal truth is you have no voice on sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc… You only have as much voice as they are willing to allow you to have they own the servers and pay the bills.

    To that point you really dont have any voice on the internet that someone isnt allowing you to have. All the backbones, NOCs and switching stations are owned by someone somewhere and i bet they are out to make a buck. They could roll up the carpets anytime as well. We’d all like to think that the internet is a free for all, but in reality we know it isnt.

    A good friend and google fanboy gave me a good proverbial punch in the gut the other day as I railed on the overuse and blind trust people put in the google monolith. When i finished by dissertation he calmly said “you do realize that the line you’re on, the server your site is on and the email you’re pulling down is someone elses… right?”

    Consider me Pwned.

  • Timo

    The brutal truth is you have no voice on sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc… You only have as much voice as they are willing to allow you to have they own the servers and pay the bills.

    To that point you really dont have any voice on the internet that someone isnt allowing you to have. All the backbones, NOCs and switching stations are owned by someone somewhere and i bet they are out to make a buck. They could roll up the carpets anytime as well. We’d all like to think that the internet is a free for all, but in reality we know it isnt.

    A good friend and google fanboy gave me a good proverbial punch in the gut the other day as I railed on the overuse and blind trust people put in the google monolith. When i finished by dissertation he calmly said “you do realize that the line you’re on, the server your site is on and the email you’re pulling down is someone elses… right?”

    Consider me Pwned.

  • http://kidonggamer.blogspot.com/ watzabatza

    @Jessica

    I am using internet all-day..

    web browsing, chatting, blogging,

    and gaming.

    I can’t stop myself from minimizing using it..

    I think I am already addicted to it,

  • http://kidonggamer.blogspot.com/ watzabatza

    @Jessica

    I am using internet all-day..

    web browsing, chatting, blogging,

    and gaming.

    I can’t stop myself from minimizing using it..

    I think I am already addicted to it,

  • http://www.tomkephart.com Tom Kephart

    Thanks for bringing this to the attention of your many readers, Chris. The idea of losing access to your work in the “cloud” certainly needs to be taken seriously, but as Timo points out, even “self-hosted” sites and email is often hosted off-site on someone else’s servers, if not actually Google’s. There is always the possibility that those who own the presses, so to speak, will use their rights as owners to suppress ideas and speech they disagree with.

    (A heads up: I believe the video and the YouTube account in question belong to someone named Michael Goodspeed and not Laura Ross. I think the synthisized female voice may have added to the confusion. Perhaps Laura linked it on Facebook?)

  • http://www.tomkephart.com Tom Kephart

    Thanks for bringing this to the attention of your many readers, Chris. The idea of losing access to your work in the “cloud” certainly needs to be taken seriously, but as Timo points out, even “self-hosted” sites and email is often hosted off-site on someone else’s servers, if not actually Google’s. There is always the possibility that those who own the presses, so to speak, will use their rights as owners to suppress ideas and speech they disagree with.

    (A heads up: I believe the video and the YouTube account in question belong to someone named Michael Goodspeed and not Laura Ross. I think the synthisized female voice may have added to the confusion. Perhaps Laura linked it on Facebook?)

  • http://www.tomkephart.com Tom Kephart

    Thanks for bringing this to the attention of your many readers, Chris. The idea of losing access to your work in the “cloud” certainly needs to be taken seriously, but as Timo points out, even “self-hosted” sites and email is often hosted off-site on someone else’s servers, if not actually Google’s. There is always the possibility that those who own the presses, so to speak, will use their rights as owners to suppress ideas and speech they disagree with.

    (A heads up: I believe the video and the YouTube account in question belong to someone named Michael Goodspeed and not Laura Ross. I think the synthisized female voice may have added to the confusion. Perhaps Laura linked it on Facebook?)

  • http://www.thehotiron.com/ Mike Maddaloni – The Hot Iron

    It’s getting to the point where we all will have to host our own content and provide the tools to embed them, etc., and use sites like YouTube to merely promote them.

    mp/m

  • http://www.thehotiron.com/ Mike Maddaloni – The Hot Iron

    It’s getting to the point where we all will have to host our own content and provide the tools to embed them, etc., and use sites like YouTube to merely promote them.

    mp/m

  • http://www.zackgrossbart.com Zack Grossbart

    Timo mentioned this and I’m just going to put it out there. The biggest example of what Chris is talking about is Google. If your ISP went away you could get another one. If your server went away you could switch your domain somewhere else. If Google went away where would the Internet be?

    Google going away isn’t a concern any time soon. The more immediate issue is Google changing policies. We’ve seen this happening already. When Gmail goes down a lot of companies lose their email. Google Analytics changes your favorite feature there is no way to get it back. This is the double-edged sword of cloud computing.

    The Internet was forged in the panic of the cold war and designed to withstand a nuclear attack. It turns out nuclear weapons don’t hold a candle to Google and Yahoo!

  • http://www.zackgrossbart.com Zack Grossbart

    Timo mentioned this and I’m just going to put it out there. The biggest example of what Chris is talking about is Google. If your ISP went away you could get another one. If your server went away you could switch your domain somewhere else. If Google went away where would the Internet be?

    Google going away isn’t a concern any time soon. The more immediate issue is Google changing policies. We’ve seen this happening already. When Gmail goes down a lot of companies lose their email. Google Analytics changes your favorite feature there is no way to get it back. This is the double-edged sword of cloud computing.

    The Internet was forged in the panic of the cold war and designed to withstand a nuclear attack. It turns out nuclear weapons don’t hold a candle to Google and Yahoo!

  • http://www.zackgrossbart.com Zack Grossbart

    Timo mentioned this and I’m just going to put it out there. The biggest example of what Chris is talking about is Google. If your ISP went away you could get another one. If your server went away you could switch your domain somewhere else. If Google went away where would the Internet be?

    Google going away isn’t a concern any time soon. The more immediate issue is Google changing policies. We’ve seen this happening already. When Gmail goes down a lot of companies lose their email. Google Analytics changes your favorite feature there is no way to get it back. This is the double-edged sword of cloud computing.

    The Internet was forged in the panic of the cold war and designed to withstand a nuclear attack. It turns out nuclear weapons don’t hold a candle to Google and Yahoo!

  • http://www.beingpeterkim.com Peter Kim

    YouTube was valued by Google at $1.65 billion about 2.5 years ago. Most users interact with the site for “free.” Sites need policies to create and capture value – for their investors. Hopefully this goes hand in hand with creating user value. But not all users are created equally. Even craigslist – perhaps the least “evil” of sites out there – has the potential to pull the plug. As users, we’re naturally attracted to these networks because of their scale economies.

    Mike at #10 has a great point – and as Bostonians, perhaps you and I should look to the thoughts of one of our own from two centuries ago. Is it time to revisit Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” with a 21st century perspective?

  • http://www.beingpeterkim.com Peter Kim

    YouTube was valued by Google at $1.65 billion about 2.5 years ago. Most users interact with the site for “free.” Sites need policies to create and capture value – for their investors. Hopefully this goes hand in hand with creating user value. But not all users are created equally. Even craigslist – perhaps the least “evil” of sites out there – has the potential to pull the plug. As users, we’re naturally attracted to these networks because of their scale economies.

    Mike at #10 has a great point – and as Bostonians, perhaps you and I should look to the thoughts of one of our own from two centuries ago. Is it time to revisit Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” with a 21st century perspective?

  • http://www.beingpeterkim.com Peter Kim

    YouTube was valued by Google at $1.65 billion about 2.5 years ago. Most users interact with the site for “free.” Sites need policies to create and capture value – for their investors. Hopefully this goes hand in hand with creating user value. But not all users are created equally. Even craigslist – perhaps the least “evil” of sites out there – has the potential to pull the plug. As users, we’re naturally attracted to these networks because of their scale economies.

    Mike at #10 has a great point – and as Bostonians, perhaps you and I should look to the thoughts of one of our own from two centuries ago. Is it time to revisit Emerson’s “Self-Reliance” with a 21st century perspective?

  • http://catskillcottageseed.com Richard Reeve

    I do think of this often. How Liz Strauss weaves her weekly open mic night through her comment stream on her blog keeps her best poised to handle such an interruption. I also see folks building important relationships in good old email, all the while becoming more comfortable using the short hand style they have acquired in the social media sphere. Your “blog as homebase” makes all the sense in the world.

  • http://catskillcottageseed.com Richard Reeve

    I do think of this often. How Liz Strauss weaves her weekly open mic night through her comment stream on her blog keeps her best poised to handle such an interruption. I also see folks building important relationships in good old email, all the while becoming more comfortable using the short hand style they have acquired in the social media sphere. Your “blog as homebase” makes all the sense in the world.

  • http://catskillcottageseed.com Richard Reeve

    I do think of this often. How Liz Strauss weaves her weekly open mic night through her comment stream on her blog keeps her best poised to handle such an interruption. I also see folks building important relationships in good old email, all the while becoming more comfortable using the short hand style they have acquired in the social media sphere. Your “blog as homebase” makes all the sense in the world.

  • http://www.ratracetrap.com/ Stephen – Rat Race Trap

    The reason we have YouTube to start with is the same reason why they can make their own policies – it’s private. There will always be people or companies making what we consider unfair policies or decisions. So what? They are only hurting themselves. Don’t become one of them by thinking you should control THEM. What is the difference? YouTube telling you what you can or cannot put on their site or you telling them what they can or cannot do with their site?

    Nothing except for the inconvenient fact it is their site. Those who do this are hypocrites. They want to tell other people how to behave but they don’t think they should be included in their own principle.

    I prefer freedom to protection from hate, security, or whatever else people use as excuses to enslave one another. I think banning content because some group doesn’t like it is childish and short-sighted. They don’t realize by their intolerance of the views of others and their use of pressure to enforce it they are doing the exact thing against which they preach.

    The completely unfettered Internet, unfettered from official control, is the best chance those with a minority opinion have to be heard. Don’t screw it up by being a hypocrite and telling other people what to do with their property. Nobody is stopping you from creating YourOwnTube except your inability to attract customers.

  • http://www.ratracetrap.com/ Stephen – Rat Race Trap

    The reason we have YouTube to start with is the same reason why they can make their own policies – it’s private. There will always be people or companies making what we consider unfair policies or decisions. So what? They are only hurting themselves. Don’t become one of them by thinking you should control THEM. What is the difference? YouTube telling you what you can or cannot put on their site or you telling them what they can or cannot do with their site?

    Nothing except for the inconvenient fact it is their site. Those who do this are hypocrites. They want to tell other people how to behave but they don’t think they should be included in their own principle.

    I prefer freedom to protection from hate, security, or whatever else people use as excuses to enslave one another. I think banning content because some group doesn’t like it is childish and short-sighted. They don’t realize by their intolerance of the views of others and their use of pressure to enforce it they are doing the exact thing against which they preach.

    The completely unfettered Internet, unfettered from official control, is the best chance those with a minority opinion have to be heard. Don’t screw it up by being a hypocrite and telling other people what to do with their property. Nobody is stopping you from creating YourOwnTube except your inability to attract customers.

  • http://www.ratracetrap.com/ Stephen – Rat Race Trap

    The reason we have YouTube to start with is the same reason why they can make their own policies – it’s private. There will always be people or companies making what we consider unfair policies or decisions. So what? They are only hurting themselves. Don’t become one of them by thinking you should control THEM. What is the difference? YouTube telling you what you can or cannot put on their site or you telling them what they can or cannot do with their site?

    Nothing except for the inconvenient fact it is their site. Those who do this are hypocrites. They want to tell other people how to behave but they don’t think they should be included in their own principle.

    I prefer freedom to protection from hate, security, or whatever else people use as excuses to enslave one another. I think banning content because some group doesn’t like it is childish and short-sighted. They don’t realize by their intolerance of the views of others and their use of pressure to enforce it they are doing the exact thing against which they preach.

    The completely unfettered Internet, unfettered from official control, is the best chance those with a minority opinion have to be heard. Don’t screw it up by being a hypocrite and telling other people what to do with their property. Nobody is stopping you from creating YourOwnTube except your inability to attract customers.

  • http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com reenchanter

    I think that just as they banned books in the past this is how it goes and then we mature and move to something else. Maybe the issue is not only about being banned but about all the voices that want to be heard. It is not easy to be heard period.

  • http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com reenchanter

    I think that just as they banned books in the past this is how it goes and then we mature and move to something else. Maybe the issue is not only about being banned but about all the voices that want to be heard. It is not easy to be heard period.

  • http://www.reenchantplanetearth.com marilyn

    I think that just as they banned books in the past this is how it goes and then we mature and move to something else. Maybe the issue is not only about being banned but about all the voices that want to be heard. It is not easy to be heard period.

  • http://blog.marialavis.com Maria Lavis

    You raise some critical points in this post Chris that I’ve been thinking about for some time. Well, specifically since I learned about the Facebook TOS that I commented on here: http://tinyurl.com/849o2h (Yeah, I was ranting, and I’ve settled down a bit now.)

    Facebook, Google, blogs, Youtube…even Twitter – to my knowledge any of these sites can cancel your account and pull your content, content that you worked hard to create, networks you worked hard to forge and don’t really have any proper way to back up either. Unlike a “real” publication like a news/magazine article, chapbook, pamphlet, or book, which are solid, your work can just be deleted. In essence it is similar to burning books, especially when it tramples on free speech.

    There are a couple of wrenches to consider in the mix with this idea of “free speech” though:

    1) Youtube is a public forum that children have easy access to. Profanity and sexual topics are acceptable in an adult forum, but how do we create security for our children? Tonnes of kids use Facebook and watch Youtube and saying to parents to not let them is like telling parents to not let their kids have access to bubble gum. Even if you use a net nanny, it’s annoying. Just like developing children shouldn’t be watching SouthPark because they don’t get the satirical humour, they shouldn’t be seeing a lot of online media content, but as a parent, I find it frustrating that this stuff is in such wide circulation, and sympethize with Youtube in this regard. If your kid isn’t watching it, their classmates are so they learn the content anyhow. It is irresponsible of society to just leave this stuff lying around in the name of “free speech”. I do believe we are our neighbour’s keeper to a certain degree, and that includes their kids. In real life we have bars and clubs where kids just do NOT go, and it should be the same for the internet. Once there is a bouncer at the door to keep Johnny out, maybe site managers could be laxer on their content rules.

    2) Hate groups and speech is real. There are groups out there that are founded in destructive ideologies, and when your free speech overlaps in the imaginary Venn Diagram with their vocab and/or topics, your trotting on ze edge if you are posting this material. How is a group like Youtube supposed to sort out the complex ethical arguments to screen content and serve a high volume site at the same time? Some transparent and understandable criteria is needed.

    These caveats aside, one thing I think is very wrong is for a user’s content to be pulled without some sort of acceptable warning system or expalanation of what you are doing wrong. This is what really gets my goat. Arguably, a user of Youtube is getting use of the service for free, but places like twitter and facebook have staff who are getting paid and enormous VC investment, and that is based on user #s, so users are important and need fair and equitable treatment, even if the service is “free”.

    AN ALTERNATIVE MODE?
    Have you checked out http://www.neternity.org ? I’ve chatted with @imranawar on Twitter who started this organization, because I love his idea of creating an online “Legacy”. As far as I can see, he is trying to do what organizations like Facebook and Youtube are not, and that is creating something of sure and lasting value to the user, something that would even be guaranteed to live on after you are gone — a real digital legacy. To me that is exciting stuff that Youtube et al have missed out on completely. In the past it was only nobility that would have such a legacy, but this sort of service to me represents a true democratization of the net.

  • http://blog.marialavis.com Maria Lavis

    You raise some critical points in this post Chris that I’ve been thinking about for some time. Well, specifically since I learned about the Facebook TOS that I commented on here: http://tinyurl.com/849o2h (Yeah, I was ranting, and I’ve settled down a bit now.)

    Facebook, Google, blogs, Youtube…even Twitter – to my knowledge any of these sites can cancel your account and pull your content, content that you worked hard to create, networks you worked hard to forge and don’t really have any proper way to back up either. Unlike a “real” publication like a news/magazine article, chapbook, pamphlet, or book, which are solid, your work can just be deleted. In essence it is similar to burning books, especially when it tramples on free speech.

    There are a couple of wrenches to consider in the mix with this idea of “free speech” though:

    1) Youtube is a public forum that children have easy access to. Profanity and sexual topics are acceptable in an adult forum, but how do we create security for our children? Tonnes of kids use Facebook and watch Youtube and saying to parents to not let them is like telling parents to not let their kids have access to bubble gum. Even if you use a net nanny, it’s annoying. Just like developing children shouldn’t be watching SouthPark because they don’t get the satirical humour, they shouldn’t be seeing a lot of online media content, but as a parent, I find it frustrating that this stuff is in such wide circulation, and sympethize with Youtube in this regard. If your kid isn’t watching it, their classmates are so they learn the content anyhow. It is irresponsible of society to just leave this stuff lying around in the name of “free speech”. I do believe we are our neighbour’s keeper to a certain degree, and that includes their kids. In real life we have bars and clubs where kids just do NOT go, and it should be the same for the internet. Once there is a bouncer at the door to keep Johnny out, maybe site managers could be laxer on their content rules.

    2) Hate groups and speech is real. There are groups out there that are founded in destructive ideologies, and when your free speech overlaps in the imaginary Venn Diagram with their vocab and/or topics, your trotting on ze edge if you are posting this material. How is a group like Youtube supposed to sort out the complex ethical arguments to screen content and serve a high volume site at the same time? Some transparent and understandable criteria is needed.

    These caveats aside, one thing I think is very wrong is for a user’s content to be pulled without some sort of acceptable warning system or expalanation of what you are doing wrong. This is what really gets my goat. Arguably, a user of Youtube is getting use of the service for free, but places like twitter and facebook have staff who are getting paid and enormous VC investment, and that is based on user #s, so users are important and need fair and equitable treatment, even if the service is “free”.

    AN ALTERNATIVE MODE?
    Have you checked out http://www.neternity.org ? I’ve chatted with @imranawar on Twitter who started this organization, because I love his idea of creating an online “Legacy”. As far as I can see, he is trying to do what organizations like Facebook and Youtube are not, and that is creating something of sure and lasting value to the user, something that would even be guaranteed to live on after you are gone — a real digital legacy. To me that is exciting stuff that Youtube et al have missed out on completely. In the past it was only nobility that would have such a legacy, but this sort of service to me represents a true democratization of the net.

  • http://blog.marialavis.com Maria Lavis

    You raise some critical points in this post Chris that I’ve been thinking about for some time. Well, specifically since I learned about the Facebook TOS that I commented on here: http://tinyurl.com/849o2h (Yeah, I was ranting, and I’ve settled down a bit now.)

    Facebook, Google, blogs, Youtube…even Twitter – to my knowledge any of these sites can cancel your account and pull your content, content that you worked hard to create, networks you worked hard to forge and don’t really have any proper way to back up either. Unlike a “real” publication like a news/magazine article, chapbook, pamphlet, or book, which are solid, your work can just be deleted. In essence it is similar to burning books, especially when it tramples on free speech.

    There are a couple of wrenches to consider in the mix with this idea of “free speech” though:

    1) Youtube is a public forum that children have easy access to. Profanity and sexual topics are acceptable in an adult forum, but how do we create security for our children? Tonnes of kids use Facebook and watch Youtube and saying to parents to not let them is like telling parents to not let their kids have access to bubble gum. Even if you use a net nanny, it’s annoying. Just like developing children shouldn’t be watching SouthPark because they don’t get the satirical humour, they shouldn’t be seeing a lot of online media content, but as a parent, I find it frustrating that this stuff is in such wide circulation, and sympethize with Youtube in this regard. If your kid isn’t watching it, their classmates are so they learn the content anyhow. It is irresponsible of society to just leave this stuff lying around in the name of “free speech”. I do believe we are our neighbour’s keeper to a certain degree, and that includes their kids. In real life we have bars and clubs where kids just do NOT go, and it should be the same for the internet. Once there is a bouncer at the door to keep Johnny out, maybe site managers could be laxer on their content rules.

    2) Hate groups and speech is real. There are groups out there that are founded in destructive ideologies, and when your free speech overlaps in the imaginary Venn Diagram with their vocab and/or topics, your trotting on ze edge if you are posting this material. How is a group like Youtube supposed to sort out the complex ethical arguments to screen content and serve a high volume site at the same time? Some transparent and understandable criteria is needed.

    These caveats aside, one thing I think is very wrong is for a user’s content to be pulled without some sort of acceptable warning system or expalanation of what you are doing wrong. This is what really gets my goat. Arguably, a user of Youtube is getting use of the service for free, but places like twitter and facebook have staff who are getting paid and enormous VC investment, and that is based on user #s, so users are important and need fair and equitable treatment, even if the service is “free”.

    AN ALTERNATIVE MODE?
    Have you checked out http://www.neternity.org ? I’ve chatted with @imranawar on Twitter who started this organization, because I love his idea of creating an online “Legacy”. As far as I can see, he is trying to do what organizations like Facebook and Youtube are not, and that is creating something of sure and lasting value to the user, something that would even be guaranteed to live on after you are gone — a real digital legacy. To me that is exciting stuff that Youtube et al have missed out on completely. In the past it was only nobility that would have such a legacy, but this sort of service to me represents a true democratization of the net.

  • http://thesocialcollective.com Chris Bucchere

    I happen to agree with Laura in that people today are completely desensitized to violence but get horrifically bent out of shape at even the slightest mention of anything sexual in nature. Ironically, nearly all humans have had or will have sex, but only a tiny fraction of our population will commit the kind of graphic violence we see on shows like 24, CSI, etc.

    However, there’s one question that comes to mind when I hear about the alleged “censorship” of people’s content on site’s like YouTube/Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. That question is: why are we still beating this dead horse? Seriously, arguing that somehow network television or YouTube needs to protect “free speech” demonstrates a completely inane failure to understand corporate America. YouTube is part of Google, which is a corporation, not a nation state or government entity. Google does not have a bill of rights or a constitution to uphold. They do, however, have to run a for-profit corporation and protect their own interests and those of their shareholders. Google, like television networks, will feed you gobs and gobs of horseshit about how they’re being altruistic (don’t be evil), but their only duty is to drive ad revenue to bolster their top line and demonstrate value to their shareholders. If anything gets in the way of that one singular and all-important motive, then kiss it goodbye. TOS, Privacy Policies, SLAs, etc. are barely worth the paper they’re (not even) printed on. Anything legal agreement can — no, WILL — be changed in the interest of one corporate motive: to deliver shareholder value.

    The funniest part about all of this is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with running a business like (you guessed it) a business. If you don’t like it, host your own content. Distribution on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. may appear free, but it’s not. I blogged about this several months ago.

    My point: quit yer’ bichin’ about the policing that Google and other sites are doing of the content that they’re distributing for you at no direct to cost to you. Whatever you may think, once you upload your content, you’re giving them the right to do whatever they want with it — use it for their own profit, remix/modify it or (the horror!) take it down if they deem it inappropriate in any way, shape or form.

  • http://thesocialcollective.com Chris Bucchere

    I happen to agree with Laura in that people today are completely desensitized to violence but get horrifically bent out of shape at even the slightest mention of anything sexual in nature. Ironically, nearly all humans have had or will have sex, but only a tiny fraction of our population will commit the kind of graphic violence we see on shows like 24, CSI, etc.

    However, there’s one question that comes to mind when I hear about the alleged “censorship” of people’s content on site’s like YouTube/Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. That question is: why are we still beating this dead horse? Seriously, arguing that somehow network television or YouTube needs to protect “free speech” demonstrates a completely inane failure to understand corporate America. YouTube is part of Google, which is a corporation, not a nation state or government entity. Google does not have a bill of rights or a constitution to uphold. They do, however, have to run a for-profit corporation and protect their own interests and those of their shareholders. Google, like television networks, will feed you gobs and gobs of horseshit about how they’re being altruistic (don’t be evil), but their only duty is to drive ad revenue to bolster their top line and demonstrate value to their shareholders. If anything gets in the way of that one singular and all-important motive, then kiss it goodbye. TOS, Privacy Policies, SLAs, etc. are barely worth the paper they’re (not even) printed on. Anything legal agreement can — no, WILL — be changed in the interest of one corporate motive: to deliver shareholder value.

    The funniest part about all of this is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with running a business like (you guessed it) a business. If you don’t like it, host your own content. Distribution on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. may appear free, but it’s not. I blogged about this several months ago.

    My point: quit yer’ bichin’ about the policing that Google and other sites are doing of the content that they’re distributing for you at no direct to cost to you. Whatever you may think, once you upload your content, you’re giving them the right to do whatever they want with it — use it for their own profit, remix/modify it or (the horror!) take it down if they deem it inappropriate in any way, shape or form.

  • http://thesocialcollective.com Chris Bucchere

    I happen to agree with Laura in that people today are completely desensitized to violence but get horrifically bent out of shape at even the slightest mention of anything sexual in nature. Ironically, nearly all humans have had or will have sex, but only a tiny fraction of our population will commit the kind of graphic violence we see on shows like 24, CSI, etc.

    However, there’s one question that comes to mind when I hear about the alleged “censorship” of people’s content on site’s like YouTube/Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. That question is: why are we still beating this dead horse? Seriously, arguing that somehow network television or YouTube needs to protect “free speech” demonstrates a completely inane failure to understand corporate America. YouTube is part of Google, which is a corporation, not a nation state or government entity. Google does not have a bill of rights or a constitution to uphold. They do, however, have to run a for-profit corporation and protect their own interests and those of their shareholders. Google, like television networks, will feed you gobs and gobs of horseshit about how they’re being altruistic (don’t be evil), but their only duty is to drive ad revenue to bolster their top line and demonstrate value to their shareholders. If anything gets in the way of that one singular and all-important motive, then kiss it goodbye. TOS, Privacy Policies, SLAs, etc. are barely worth the paper they’re (not even) printed on. Anything legal agreement can — no, WILL — be changed in the interest of one corporate motive: to deliver shareholder value.

    The funniest part about all of this is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with running a business like (you guessed it) a business. If you don’t like it, host your own content. Distribution on Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. may appear free, but it’s not. I blogged about this several months ago.

    My point: quit yer’ bichin’ about the policing that Google and other sites are doing of the content that they’re distributing for you at no direct to cost to you. Whatever you may think, once you upload your content, you’re giving them the right to do whatever they want with it — use it for their own profit, remix/modify it or (the horror!) take it down if they deem it inappropriate in any way, shape or form.

Newer Comments →
GetSocial