Feeds

back to article Neo-Nazis scoop YouTube ad revenue from UK telcos

Neo-Nazis operating in the UK have reportedly used YouTube's advertising revenue-sharing system to gobble up payments from companies that include BT, O2 and Virgin Media. None of the telcos were aware that the right-wing extremists who had posted the videos on Google's website were exploiting the search giant's Adsense network, …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Confusing

If Google believe so passionately in free speech, why did they take them down (as reported)?

6
6
JDX
Gold badge

Re: Confusing

a)because they're forced to by local laws

b)because as they say, they don't include "hate speech" as part of "free speech"

8
2
Headmaster

Re: Confusing

Because there is no such thing as truly free speech. Would you want me to have the right to go up to your mother and randomnly slag you off to her and list a whole load of heinous and made up crimes that I think you are guilty of? This would cause you and your mother distress and infringe upon your basic rights. Thus I would be stopped (by the police and the courts) from doing it.

So by the same token, Google are simply enforcing their stated rules and removing content that is flagged up to them as illegal (a video inciting violence against a minority is illegal under UK law) or would cause distress and/or impinges upon the rights of others. In short, an individual's right to have a decent and fair life is more important than the right of someone to hassle them with abusive words.

Free speech does not equate to being allowed to be a complete arsehole to others and Google are simply enforcing an accepted and well known definition of what free speech is - free to say what you believe as long as it does not impinge on the basic rights of others. The Neo Nazis don't tend to want to honour the basic rights of various categories of people thus their 'free speech' is often calculated to impinge upon those rights. Doing a blanket ban on them is censorship though and would impinge their free speech as opposed to only banning specific videos that fall foul of the rules.

8
4
FAIL

Re: Confusing

When the Neo-Nazis build their own Google and YouTube, they can do what they like (subject to local laws). But Google and YouTube are well within their rights to choose what goes through their system.

4
2
Bronze badge
Headmaster

Re: Confusing

Would you want me to have the right to go up to your mother and randomnly slag you off to her and list a whole load of heinous and made up crimes that I think you are guilty of? This would cause you and your mother distress and infringe upon your basic rights. Thus I would be stopped (by the police and the courts) from doing it.

More so it seems in the UK and Europe than you would in the US. The bar above which something harmful and hurtful becomes illegal and unacceptable seems to be set much higher. The right to hate is a protected right in the US though actions leading from such hate may not be. The definition of "hate crime" is much narrower in America...

"Hate itself is not a crime - and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties" - http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

1
0

Re: Confusing

I do love all the idiots who'll downvote someone for asking a simple question.

1
2
JDX
Gold badge

Free speech does not equate to being allowed to be a complete arsehole

Discuss..

1
0
Bronze badge
Holmes

Re: Confusing

Because they don't actually care about any of that, they just do whatever they think is best for their corporate image, i.e. ensuring plenty of users and advertisers keep on coming. Kind of like when Amazon briefly stocked that pro pedophile ebook. At first they said "free speech!", but when people threatened to boycott they changed their tune really really fast.

Not that I have any sympathy for the neo-nazi viewpoint, but it does show how flimsy "freedom" is in the hands of an entity that only exists for profit.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Confusing

A society either allows free speech, or it doesn't. If it truly allows free speech, then "hate speech" enjoys the same exact protections as the weather forecast, or a William Faulkner novel.

The benchmark for free speech is the protection awarded to the kind of speech one might find objectionable. At least that's what the SCOTUS has said, repeatedly.

There have been several attempts by local constituencies to curtail free speech in the US, based on some arbitrary indecency standards, or some other vaporous arguments of the same sort. All have been struck down.

If you don't like these YouTube videos, don't watch them. Nobody is forcing you to. Searching for these videos on YouTube, and then declaring your outrage over their content is quite hypocritical.

4
0
Thumb Up

Re: Confusing

"Would you want me to have the right to go up to your mother and randomnly slag you off to her and list a whole load of heinous and made up crimes that I think you are guilty of?"

My mother is the type of person that as soon as she met you, she would immediately go back stabbing you as soon as you back was turned.... and she'd slag you off to her freinds, with a list of a whole load of heinous and made up crimes that she thought you were guilty of...

Take a hint - don't go up to my mother.... for anything.

LOL

1
1
Silver badge

Re: Confusing

"Would you want me to have the right to go up to your mother and randomnly slag you off to her and list a whole load of heinous and made up crimes that I think you are guilty of?"

These are not free speech issues. You are confused. In the first instance, personally targetting someone to upset them (the mother example) would normally fall under harrassment. Similarly the made up crimes fall under slander. If it can be shown you are making it up then a case can be made for damages. However, someone promoting an ideology that you find offensive is not making a personal case against an individual nor forcing someone to listen (as in the "going up to" in your example). The analogy you give is a bad one.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: "More so it seems in the UK and Europe than you would in the US."

Nonsense. Did you read the bit about "heinous and made up crimes"? That's clear-cut slander (if spoken) or libel (if published) in both UK and US law. No doubt about it.

0
0
Silver badge
Coat

Just tired old neo nazis instead of adequate space nazis?

I am disappoint.

Oh well, I will watch a youtube clip of Attorney General Holder then

3
0
Thumb Up

Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

So judaism is hate speech.

It should be banned too.

0
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

no, as nazis are real, jesus was not

4
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

I believe you'll find that Jesus (Of Nazareth) was real, there is a load of evidence that he existed. That he was the son of God may be in question.

5
2
FAIL

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

No, that's not what it means at all. The "slaughter" you describe is the rapture. If Jesus said he'd come back and kill all humans in a book, what Jesus said would be "hate speech" the book itself isn't.

See, what you've done is try to make a point by deliberately misunderstanding somethign quite simple.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

That he was the son of God is not in question as God does not exist - there is certainly no evidence either way and so Occam triumphs.

0
0

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

Actually the evidence appears to show that Jesus was an invention created using examples of previous imagined 'prophets' with very similar actions and supernatural powers.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

'Actually the evidence appears to show that Jesus was an invention created using examples of previous imagined 'prophets' with very similar actions and supernatural powers.'

Ah, just like the way Marvel keeps rebooting its comic universe when sales fall.

3
0
Headmaster

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

<QUOTE>Actually the evidence appears to show that Jesus was an invention created using examples of previous imagined 'prophets' with very similar actions and supernatural powers.</QUOTE>

Actually, no. You wont find any recent academics who have done real actual research, looking up actual source documents, and not just quoting someone else who says X or Y or Z, who doubt that Jesus was a real individual.

You will, however, find many who doubt his divine origins.

0
1

Re: Jesus said he will come back and slaughter us all....

"not just quoting someone else who says X or Y or Z,"

Just not quoting anyone.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Google

I really wonder at Google's ethics, particularly when it comes to youtube. They have a zero tolerance attitude to nudity, but they're happy for the video of Saddam Hussein being executed to be hosted. They don't seem to mind about gangs dissing each other, but boobs and willies are bad, m'kay.

4
0

Re: Google

thats america in a nutshell. remeber the puritans went to america in the 1st place as the motherland wasnt religous enough. tv is the same. kids shows have people hitting and killing each other all the time, i cant remeber the last time i watched two characters making the natural and wonderful act of love. HBO keeps getting into trouble for showing tits, but maiming and killing are ok. there is somthing horribly wrong with that.

7
0

Re: Google

I thought the (subset of) puritans who went to America wanted to escape to religious persecution - i.e. they wanted to persecute others but weren't being allowed to in England.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Google

That is an incomplete truth.

There were so many different people, with different motives, who went to America. There were Catholics and Puritans. Eventually they found they could agree on one thing: no religion should get special privileges. That was a pretty daring move for the 18th Century.

0
0

Re: Google

Then they discovered that the world contained more religions than just Christianity (hint: Catholicism and Puritanism are sects of a single religion), and decided that their religion should get special privileges after all.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Google

HBO keeps getting into trouble for showing tit

Really cause cable is not regulated by the FCC for indecency Look at the HBO real sex series. Show me proof that HBO has ever gotten in trouble for showing breasts .

0
0

Did Jesus exist?

The correct answer is "No, of course he didn't, that's a stupid assertion". There is no other response to the question that is valid.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

This should clear up your misconceptions and inaccuracy about legitimate history.

1
1
Thumb Up

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Oh yeah. This is where you instead of reading the article link you make an assertion that I wouldn't say the same thing about Islam.

Then you can get some high fives from your apologist friends.

1
1
JDX
Gold badge

Re: Did Jesus exist?

Well it's good to know 2 thousand years of academic discussion has now been cleared up once and for all by a partisan website and an internet nobody.

3
2
Devil

In the immortal words of Jello Biafra: Nazi punks, fuck off.

C'mon, Nazis... I dare you to make Adsense revenue from this YouTube clip. I double dare you.

2
0

Wow, we have god freaks and right wingers really poisoning this place. It's a shame this place used to be so good as well. Sad to see.

0
2
FAIL

Nazi Punks - are kind of cute.....

Like drug pushing motor cycle gangs, or child molesting rings in religious circles... or Infallible fucks and their cretinous clans who kill people for saying the earth revolves around the sun.....

Or corporations that say that the GM food they make and sell through vertical integration is great, only the scientists that speak up and say, "All the rats that ate it died of cancer - or the immune systems collapsed, or the livestock that have been eating it are infertile and can't breed" all get shafted big time, by a legal system populated with judges and state solicitors, who are rotating on and off the corporations boards...

Then we get the media - the corporations run by the same fucks that are into war profiteering... and who get the contracts for the military gear, and and and and and

Then we get the issue of castigating the fuck out of small groups of angry and disenfranchised and misguided people who wear a silly flag, that had it's design stolen anyway...

Ohhh it's so nice being in the Moral Majority....

0
2
Paris Hilton

Quote: "Virgin Media has a strict policy on its ad placement, so we are concerned about ads appearing against unrelated and unsuitable content on YouTube."

You should have read those T and Cs before signing up then. You know, those 12 pages of legalese that make no sense to someone signing up to your service, which you then use against them when they let their sons mate hook his laptop to the network because he isn't 'a member of the household' as stated under Section 7, paragraph 5...

Paris... she's a dumb-ass, but not a virgin subscriber...

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.