Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Congress Gets Their Own Piece of YouTube to Host Videos

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 06:01 PM
from the rules-lawyering dept.
Government The Internet Politics
YouTube has promised a commercial-free zone in the near future to help Congress deal with the problem of hosting campaign videos that were technically breaking the rule of not redirecting constituents to a commercial site. "Within a month, the one and only responder, YouTube, should have its commercial-free zone up and running, Capuano said. Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web. Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), another commission member, said the panel's Republicans want to keep the new rules fluid enough to use any future Web site that comes forward with a better plan. 'Technology moves fast. Congress moves slow,' he said."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Congress Gets Their Own Piece of YouTube to Host Videos 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Where do I opt out? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sexconker (1179573) on Friday April 11 2008, @06:07PM (#23042288)
    YouTube will have a channel dedicated to campaign videos. The videos will not link to "commercial" sites after being played.

    How is this newsworthy?

    A dedicated channel for lies, and shitty political commentary by youtube users? Where do I opt out?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by geekoid (135745)
      Good question.
      Remembering that this site is USA centric, I would contend the voting is important enough that it goes here. Especially considering the need to get younger voters involved.

      You can, of course, choose not get any politic information with a quick change to your preferences.

      To answer you specific question in your title, RTFFAQ document.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by djradon (105400)
      Don't be such a nay-sayer. This could be pretty radical.

      Does anyone know of another country that's done something like this?
    • The congress part does not have a reviews. Instead you can bribe^h^h^h^h lobby the congressmen.

  • Part of Obama's plan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rsborg (111459) on Friday April 11 2008, @06:12PM (#23042344) Homepage
    View this ahem, youtube video about his "interview" at Google [youtube.com]

    In it (can't remember where it was) he talks about going around the media going directly to the people to bypass the corrupt culture in government... and mentions he will make transparency a big part of his platform, and youtube all white house meetings.

    • I have to be honest here that is part of the reason why I am even thinking about voting for him. Even though I have more republican views. I also like him because of his more moderate views so it is more of a balance then many of the extremists are and in many ways he is a good fit(In my opinion).
      • I am sure you remember the last "Candidate for Change" that ran in 2000.

        A Washington outsider, a uniter able to bridge across party lines, a new man bringing change to Washington corruption, George W. Bush accomplished all this, and so much more.

        Given how well that worked out, I too am thinking of supporting Obama.
    • For those interested, his response is at the end of the video, when he responds to the last question. Around 61 min, but the video is worth watching overall.
    • I don't know about you, but I do NOT want all White House meetings available to the public. They talk about some secret stuff sometimes you know. I can see maybe a few general policy meetings for public consumption, but the President *needs* a certain level of secrecy.
      • Actually, its the opposite. There's some stuff that needs to be kept secret. The vast majority of it does not. As a public office, the policy default should be open, not private.
        • Exactly my point. It will be meaningless, harmless photo op content, only in video on the 'net rather than in printed media. Nothing to see, move along.

    • Obama is anti-NASA (Score:4, Informative)

      by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday April 11 2008, @08:57PM (#23043382) Homepage Journal
      http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1100/1 [thespacereview.com]

      He wants to cut the VSE budget to use the money for education.

      If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight. Some of you may think that's a good thing. If you are not one of these people, please, STOP OBAMA.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by hardburn (141468)

        I'm also anti-NASA. However, I stopped associating being anti-NASA with being anti-space exploration years ago. The most interesting things in space over the next 10 years will probably come from private companies.

      • Next, suggesting delaying the Joint Strike Fighter makes you anti-military.

        Suggesting restricting funding on school sports makes you anti-children, and anti-sports.

        It's fucked up arguments like this which result in pandering politicians promising you everything you want to hear.
        • Dude, read the fucking article ok? He sees the purpose of NASA as inspiring kids to become scientists. He believes NASA has failed to do that in recent years, so he wants to cut NASA funding and redirect the funds to his own pet project which he believes will achieve that goal. If that's not anti-NASA, I don't know what is.

          • So it's not space exploration that you care about. You are upset that he's criticized NASA.

            Whaaaaaaaa!

      • If this happens then the VSE will flounder and it will be the end of human spaceflight.

        Wait a minute. Why would cutting VSE funding mean the end of human spaceflight?

      • End of human spaceflight huh? No chance another program will spring up? No chance that perhaps another country will focus on it? Never ever again.. EVER EVER again will a human go into space?

        Ok. You're right. Let's elect Clinton or McCain. I'm sure NASA programs are #1 priority to them!

    • I like how he'll take my money and buy broadband for poor people. I was just thinking the other day about how poor people don't get to see enough pornography.

      I'm glad he wants to modernize goverment services to cut costs but people who can't afford internet connections and/or don't want them can go to the library or an internet cafe. Providing internet access isn't the government's job.

      • Funny; you don't want poor people to get it, but you yourself get it through government subsidies. Classic.

        • I don't care if it costs me $1000 per Mbit, I'd be first in line voting to get rid of those subsidies.

          The government buying and/or subsidizing internet for anybody is wrong.

          • Very convenient to get rid of the subsidies *now* when *you* can afford it, after a huge subsidy from DARPA created the thing, but before the poor are wired up. Yeah "get rid of the subsidies" now that others might be getting a chance.

  • Why youtube? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RalphSleigh (899929) on Friday April 11 2008, @06:38PM (#23042568) Homepage
    If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'? Flash video is not rocket science.

    • Why youtube?
      Youtube is all the rage in today's youth, they are just trying to take advantage of that.

      If I can host flash video and a simple player on my £30/year web host, is there any good reason their in house tech is 'slow and cumbersome'?
      Think about how many people connect to your server. Now think how many per second connect to the youtube servers.
      • Yeah, I once embedded my video in a myspace page and watched my bandwidth disappear down a black hole. However if they can handle the web traffic, adding flash video is not as huge extra.
      • People do not go to you tube searching for campaign videos they get to youtube via the campaigners web site. All that needs to happen is for congress to add video streaming to the library of congress so the videos can be hosted there. Side benefits, kept as a matter of public record, un-editable once put up and campaigners held legally liable for them.

        WTF is all the nonsense about trying to make Youtube of any other commercial site suitable, and should the video then go on to also be hosted by commercial

  • Republicans... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr. Flibble (12943) on Friday April 11 2008, @06:54PM (#23042684) Homepage
    Republicans on the commission still fret that with only one such site, the House could be seen as picking winners and losers on the Web.

    Every time I see popular political videos on You Tube it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

    • it looks to me like Republicans are the losers on the web.

      Uhhh, everybody is a loser on the web.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dangitman (862676)
        Ron Paul didn't come out looking like a fool? That's news to me.b Except for Nader, he is the biggest joke of the '08 Presidential campaign, especially on the web. Even Huckabee did better.

  • Capuano (Score:4, Informative)

    by Roxton (73137) <roxton.gmail@com> on Friday April 11 2008, @08:02PM (#23043078) Homepage
    I've had the good fortune of being represented by Capuano in Boston. He's great, because he maintains an electronic newsletter detailing issues faced by the House and his rationale for voting. Regardless of where you're from, I recommend visiting his site and taking a look at his "e-updates" to get a sense of the political process.

    http://www.house.gov/capuano/ [house.gov]

    Awesome, awesome congressman.
  • I can't wait for that video to get released.

  • Of course, qualifying videos must be handheld, shaking, out of focus, and pointing in the opposite direction of the subject.

    • It might assuage your anger somewhat to know that very few candidates running for national public office in the United States take the public or so called "hard-money" anymore because of the restrictions attached to accepting such funding. One simply cannot buy the necessary advertising on the national television networks and websites at the going rates these days with the meager tax-payer funded "hard-money". That is why every serious candidate opts-out of public funding and takes "soft-money" from private

      • Re:Better solution... (Score:5, Informative)

        by aengblom (123492) on Friday April 11 2008, @06:37PM (#23042560) Homepage
        "Hard" and "soft" money has nothing to do with opting out of public funding. In fact, the record amounts of money raised in the primaries HAS been "hard" money -- or money raised under the ~$2,000 per person limit to candidates.

        Soft money refers to ulimited donations to interest groups that, because of free speech laws, are able to run ads and perform other activities to support particular ideas and parties (which may just happen to align perfectly with one candidate).

        The reason the candidates aren't accepting public funding is that while it gives candidates a bonus per dollar raised, it also limits how much they can spend. The amounts a major national figure can raise today is actually larger than the most they can collect under public funding plus the government subsidy.
        • You are quite correct, I had two separate but often associated concepts intertwined. Thank you for clarifying.
    • Agreed, but only if every cent a campaign spends is from named sources and any fraud results in the removal of the candidate.

      (Not, of course, that it is anywhere near above board currently.)

    • The problem with this is someone who has a lot of money can essentially "buy" a lot of votes. I know it's not exactly a popular thing to say, but there are certain very wealthy socialists who will try to buy the next presidential election. There are all kinds of people who would buy the presidential election if they could- new finance laws make this possible. If all the adds gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling when I watched them I would not have a problem with people spending tons of money on them.

      Howe

    • You might like to know that we tried that... It didn't work. A single wealthy individual could finance an entire campaign, and have a politician totally indebted to them. Wasn't very much fun for everybody else.

      The system we have today where anybody can give any amount they want up to a limit of $2400 works great. Just look at Obama's fundraising totals.

      • So, RIAA and friends hand over 2-3 million dollars to their favorite Congress-Critter. Now he happily obeys his new corporate overlords.

        Then the EFF, DefectiveByDesign, etc. donate to his opponent. This is called "pluralism" and the American founding fathers predicted it. They believed that special interest groups would do just what they are doing, trying to promote their special interest. They knew it was impossible for the government to control these groups or check their power so the solution was to allow for so many groups to form that they would end up checking each other. That's "hyperpluralism".

        Also vote buying is a bit of a myth.

        • I wouldn't expect that at all. If anything, I'd expect more votes bought from last term congress people. They have retirement to think about. No more cushy congress salary, so better get the most out of it while they can. And if they get caught, they were finished anyway.

      • Please explain how this "ownership" works. Why, exactly, can't the Congressman simply vote exactly as he pleases and pick up 2-3 million dollars from someone else the next time around, or retire?
    • Since congress has realized this, it only mean technology is slowing down.
    • Yeah, obviously he meant 'slowLY'.

      He's probably just a simple Apple user.

      Furthermore, is that a correct use of 'fast'? He probably should have used 'quickly', but I'm not sure anymore, since I myself own and use several Apple products.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.