Tokyo Demands YouTube Play Fair 239
eldavojohn writes "Recently, the city government of Tokyo has requested that political speeches to be pulled from YouTube, claiming that it gave certain hopefuls an advantage over others for Sunday's election. You may recall YouTube being in trouble with more than a few countries in the past. 'Japanese election law limits the broadcasting of speeches, which are aired only on public broadcaster NHK. Soon after the race kicked off last month, the speech by one fringe candidate, street musician Koichi Toyama, 36, has become a popular attraction on YouTube due to his eccentric, confrontational approach.' Is it fair that some government officials are being viewed more on YouTube than others or is it simply leveling the playing field for anyone with a message since it costs very little to put a video on YouTube?"
Japan demands Play Fair? (Score:5, Funny)
Information wants to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
All attempts to a) disseminate information to large groups and b) control that dissemination will FAIL. They must fail. The energy required to contain information scales very much logarithmically with respect to the size of the group that receives it, and quickly becomes impractical. We're not telling the RIAA, MPAA, Japanese government, and many others that, "your information is something I should be allowed to have." Rather, we're trying to explain that, "your information is going to be knocking at my door several times a week, and if you make it illegal for me to answer my door, it's just going to end up with me going to jail... does that serve a purpose?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Hummmm. (Score:2)
I guess that depends on which country you live in.
Re:Hummmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Limits of free speech are sometimes justified (you can't cry fire in a theater) and this MAY be one of those occasions. Or not.
Re:Hummmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. The initial reaction among Americans to this news would likely be to cite "free speech" as justification for letting YouTube keep the clips up.
But that's a very Amero-centric way of looking at the world, and is rooted in the same kind of thinking that now has us in trouble in Iraq and is responsible for the dim view taken of us by the rest of the world.
If Japan's laws say speeches can't be broadcast except through government-controlled TV, then I'm sorry, but that's the law. And if Google wants to do business in Japan (as they do), then they need to respect local laws. A US company should not be trying to impose US law or US cultural norms on Japan.
It's perfectly within YouTube's power to geo-restrict these videos to parts of the world where they're allowed. Yes, you can get around those restrictions if you really want to, but there's no reason they shouldn't take reasonable measures to comply with Japanese laws with regard to Japanese videos.
Re: (Score:2)
If Japan's laws say speeches can't be broadcast except through government-controlled TV, then I'm sorry, but that's the law. And if Google wants to do business in Japan (as they do), then they need to respect local laws. A US company should not be trying to impose US law or US cultural norms on Japan.
Very true. I have a fairly low opinion of Japanese election laws, but it's their country and they make the rules, for better or for worse. (Far, far worse is that they preempt Sumo, oh no!)
Think of this one as one of the silly McCain campaign finance "reform" laws.
Re: (Score:2)
... not as if America has a great record in this regard; we have some fairly ridiculous censorship laws on our books (by which YouTube MUST abide, or they WILL be shut down by the gov't) because we're always ThinkingOfTheChildren. Take a look at YouTube's code of conduct [youtube.com]. Maybe that would be their code of content irrespective of the law in their host country... however, if somebody else created a YouTube fork that didn
Re:Hummmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I see it, if this service puts pressure on Japan's legal system they're free to try and stop it. However, the chances of them doing so in the long run is slim. I say buckle up and make some adjustments to the system. The sooner the better.
Re:Hummmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you can't enforce the law within your jurisdiction, maybe it's time to review your law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? After all 'merica is an empire, not just a country. We Americans have been imposing our norms and culture all over the world for some time now. This would not be the first or last time something like this happens. For better or worse what is going on here is pretty normal. If you dont like it and want it to change thats one thing but its going to happen anyway most likely.
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, it would be a horrible thing if someone in Japan wasn't doing the same thing as everyone else. How shameful!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"This week Thailand's military-installed government banned YouTube entirely after it failed to block a video considered insultin
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, it is possible that they are not violating Japanese law. As has been already said, the internet is not a broadcast (radio) medium. Also, looking at Japan's constitution:
Article 21:
Freedom of assembly and association as well as speech, press and all other forms of expression are guaranteed. 2) No censorship shall be maintained, nor shall the secrecy of any means of communication be violated.
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Japan/English/
Idiots depending on paper to protect them.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yea, it says that. But I don't see that piece of paper kicking the ass of politicians who wipe their asses on it. Here in the US we had the fabled 1st Amendment that also made certain promises in that regard but I didn't see it, or the enraged ghosts of the signers, kicking John McCain in the nuts when he ripped it out of our Constituition. Although on a slightly hopeful note it appears the American people (at least the Republicans) appear to be denying McCain a run at the Presidency in repayment for his sins.
In the end paper cannot protect us, only WE can protect us. The paper only represents a contract amongst us as to what we are supposed to put up with before we start shooting the bastards. If we don't uphold our end of that bargain we lose representitive government and get what we have now in most western countries, rule by an elite nobility unbound by any rule of law.
If anyone is still in doubt as to the wisdom of "Campaign Finance Reform" or "Government financing of campaigns" look well upon Japan and see the end product of your logic at it's conclusion. For certain definitions ofthe word it is "Fair" but it is not Free by any definition. There is a wider lesson here regarding the relationship between "Fair" and "Free."
I strongly disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When your talking about a country with as radically different a history and culture as Japan (it's not Canada, folks), then very few of us in the US (or Europe) have the slightest clue how or why they have the regulations they do, and what the consequences of ch
Understanding Regulations (Score:2)
Norway is a real multi-party democracy. Politics is a grass roots affair here, and printed media is central to the debate. We view the issue of TV-advertising as a threat to democratic discourse - in that the big two/three parties have far more funds than the rest. The only TV debates that matter are the one's bro
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
But the US isn't, in this case. Instead, it's the Japanese legal authorities that want to impose Japanese law on foreign soil. The turnaround equivalent could for instance the restrictions for paid political speech in the US, which does not stop any foreign blogger or other media talking about the US election, endorsing one candidate over another (without disclosing what agenda they really do and who is paying and so on). Or laws in some countries like Sweden that forbid identifying a crime suspect by name and image before they've actually convicted, but which of course doesn't stop newspapers publishing that info on websites in neighboring countries
I live in Japan and there's a good deal of rules and other things that do make sense here, but the election-related framework is frankly one that no longer does, if it really ever did (candidates are for instance not allowed to actually change the content on their websites once campaigning is started). One way to solve this could be to distinguish push and pull media. Keep restrictions in place for push media like radio, television, magazine ads and so on, media for which it was intended. But allow free use of pull media like websites or Youtube - there the user is actively searching out the info, not getting it stuffed down their throat. The playing field is also more even due to the low cost of setting up and maintaining such a prescence.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like an easy* way to prevent that last-minute mudslinging. Japanese elections may be overly restrictive, but are they as corrupt and nasty as American ones have become?
* Easy is not always good or better.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Japan is attempting to enforce their laws on their soil. If Youtube had some system to determine where the request was coming from geographically and could block all request from Japanese territory then I doubt Japan would be concern at all what Youtube does on other countries soil. In fact, this is probably the real solution that Youtube needs to devise, a system where
people in power fear the internet (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, but in this case "enforcing our laws in other countries" means "letting people in Japan see people speaking freely on American servers". The US isn't forcing Japan to permit people to say this stuff in Japan. If Japan wants to force everyone in Japan onto a state-run ISP that filters content (like is done in most of the Middle East and in repressive regimes), hey, that's between them and their God (or A
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except to say this. Someone posted some flamebait about how they aren't going to edit their web site for every law in every country in the world, and that you can't censor in the 21st century. I won't credit the post with a dire
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's put it this way. If this was an RIAA article we'd be saying "The MAFIAA needs to adapt to the modern world!" It's not like anyone said the Japanese can't continue eating sushi, work insane hours and make Playstations. What if you're a Japanese tourist in another country? I doubt they're going to hook up a broadcast just so you can see the hamsters run in their wheel.
This isn't exactly a law that has real social benefit. Not like punishment for a crime. This is more closely related to moderating access to information. Speaking as a native of the planet Earth who thinks allowing law to create hardline distinctions between cultures and wishes we could all just "Get along." it's a stupid law at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Other countries really don't have this problem to the extent you see it in the US, so maybe you shouldn't dismiss it so quickly - although I tend to agree that trying to regulate foreign internet serve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The main issue is the control of information. When governments enact 'fair' laws, especially for elections, it always turns out bad. Look how Ralph Nader couldnt debate on television a few years ago because of the system of gatekeepers in the government and the media.
Considering youtube is a free upload and hosting service, this is decidedly anti-free speech which is very much a universal human issue, n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Put all the speeches on YouTube and let the public access them. That way the playing field is level.
That probably is the best solution, but I also understand the reasoning behind limiting the sources for political speech. Picture this, 8 hours before the election someone floods YouTube and other channels with a faked video showing the current runner up talking about how he is secretly a pedophile and has molested children. As a result he loses the election and the perpetrator may or may not ever be found.
By restricting access to a single channel there is the potential that whomever controls that channe
Re:Simple solution (Score:4, Interesting)
If the citizens base their decisions on such flimsy evidence, then they deserve whatever politicians they elect. Anyone who has access to YouTube should know exactly how easy it is to fake a video.
By restricting access to a single channel there is the potential that whomever controls that channel will abuse it, but at the same time it prevents the scenario I described above.
How so? Please explain what's the difference between YouTube and some "official political channel" regarding fake videos? Do you mean that if there existed a single political channel then no damaging evidence against any politician would be accepted, no matter how authentic? Or do you believe the operators of that political channel would have the resources to verify the authenticity of all the material supplied to them?
Having a free press means that at some times some lies may be published. Also some people will be pissed-off about what's published. But in the end I see no other alternative to make sure the whole political system will remain more or less democratic. To paraphrase Churchill, a free press is the worst possible information system, with the exception of all other systems.
Japan isn't the only country with quirky elections (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Still blocked in Thailand too (Score:2)
Yup. Still blocked in Thailand [slashdot.org].
I don't know what the fuss is about YouTube is though. Sites which allow users to post content are going to be hosting objectionable content. Governments have the choice of blocking a particular url or making a point and blocking the whole site.
Ensuring fairness (Score:4, Interesting)
Plus, just because someone has a funny Youtube video doesn't mean you'll vote to put him in charge of your city. Tokyo elections aren't like American Idol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And pretty soon political candidates will determine that the real secret to political success is not their position on Education, Crime, Taxes and Foreign Policy, but rather how long their farts can stay on fire and how many live goldfish they can swallow...
How is this different ... (Score:3, Interesting)
In Japan, you can't. (Score:3, Informative)
The Japanese election laws are actually very strict about this kind of thing. I haven't gone through all the details, but for example, Article 142 of the Public Election Law (Japanese link) [e-gov.go.jp] limits candidates in prefectural governor elections to 35000+X postcards, where X depends on the number of lower-house national representative in the prefecture, and no fliers at all. There are lots of other rules--applying to anyone, not just candidates--preventing things like visiting people to ask for votes and all so
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, then it's OK, I guess. After all, it's not as if anyone could go to the nearest Office Depot and print an additional 35000 cards without notifying the election officials, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, then it's OK, I guess. After all, it's not as if anyone could go to the nearest Office Depot and print an additional 35000 cards without notifying the election officials, right?
I suppose they could, if they wanted to get banned from holding office for five years [fukushima-minpo.co.jp] (Japanese link again, sorry), like the previous governor of Fukushima prefecture. Granted, in his case it bribes that occurred while in office rather than election improprieties, but the same penalty applies--I just can't recall a specific r
"Fair"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that so? (Score:2)
Then what about the situation suggested by this poster [slashdot.org], where one candidate makes use of massive funds to effectively smother another? I'd hardly call that "fair".
The Japanese law is arguably conservative, but its you-may-do-nothing-but-this approach does (or at least did, pre-Internet) work well to preserve a level playing field, or at least punish those who broke the rules. Whether the voters are making good use of that level playing field is a completely separate issue I won't delve into here . . .
Nothing new (Score:2)
This doesn't seem all that different to me than many of the political free-speech-limiting laws that we have in the US and elsewhere -- campaign finance laws, equal access, and all that jazz. Political speech on other broadcast mediums gets some close scrutiny; it makes sense that we would see the same thing happening on the internet.
Of course, I think it would be an improvement to allow unimpeded free speech on the internet, television, radio, print, and everything else -- but you can't say that these re
Re: (Score:2)
Now, Canadates using methods to push there message to me should be limited.
No equality on consumption! (Score:5, Insightful)
YouTube is not a broadcaster, it doesn't "air" anything. It is a source of goods for consumption. I don't like the idea of governments forcing me to "consume" candidates equally. If I want to watch more videos of one candidate over another, that should be my right.
Broadcast is a content limited resource, which is why those resources are required to be shared evenly among candidates, the internet isn't limited in that way, so forced rationing doesn't make sense. I can't choose what is broadcast on NBC, but I can choose what I watch on YouTube, that's the difference between the two.
Playing it safe (Score:2)
In fairness, the law simply isn't ready for YouTube. Given the conservative approach taken with respect to other media (placing strict limits on basically all of a candidate's activities; see this comment [slashdot.org], for example), I can't really blame the government for this reaction, as ineffective as it may be. The real test will come when they review the law and decide how to deal with sites like YouTube.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(just try living here...)
Old law needs updating (Score:5, Interesting)
The law is a good one, in general, it prevents networks sympathetic to a particular candidate to run their speeches 24/7 and deny access to all others. We have similar laws in the US, which prevents Senator Thompson's "Law and Order" episodes from airing air while he is running for President. It also means Al Franken can not continue his radio show while he runs for Senate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly - in the US, networks have to be sympathetic to a particular *two* candidates, and are only allowed to have "third party" candidates arrested at presidential debates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this law is that if you ask an entertainer to give up his day job (to avoid influencing his campaign), you should also ask incumbents running for office to do the same. Being an incumbent does give you a significant advantage in elections. And if you expect an actor
Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly. They need to be in negotiations with AOL, not YouTube.
Download vs. Broadcast (Score:2, Interesting)
The only issue that I could see is i
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind if we adopted that part of your laws myself; here the signage stays up (sometimes) for months after an election (there's one doofus where I work who's STILL driving around with a kerry/edwards bumper sticker on his car!)
Satisfying everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Eccentric and confrontational is an understatement (Score:2, Interesting)
He does sound really awesome when you pair him with music from Dragonball Z! [youtube.com]
It levels the field (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you want to say something, does not mean people have to listen.
Tokyo should play fair (Score:4, Insightful)
things like youtube are needed for leveling the playing field for ANY AND ALL citizens for the first time in WORLD HISTORY.
it was just a fallacious statement that "everyone can run for elections" before. in any country that democratic elections took place, there has been no cases that normal citizens with little income were able to run for important positions and get elected.
this was a pretty little neat trick that ensured the circles who had the money would be the ones ruling the country, and under the pretense of democracy - hey everyone can run for elections. you just wont be able to get heard if you dont have the cash.
internet, with rising connectivity of people and exposure it provides, is being an annoyance for such politician circles, and the media outlets and cartels that backed whichever candidate that would play on their side in the elections and make them get elected.
hence the shithead attack on network neutrality by at&t and their cronies, hence banning of youtube in such countries on political reasons, hence tokyo city's annoyance.
Is Japan's restriction valid? (Score:2, Interesting)
This is the central issue. It seems to me that they want to avoid allowing demagogues to promote themselves by allowing their speeches to be engrained in voters' minds through repetition. Limiting reproduction of election-related speeches is one way to accomplish that.
I personally am not sure it's a wise choice, but I don't think it's unfair, and I don't think free speech necessarily applies to el
Will they ever get it? (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's quite interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Implications for the next elections over here (Score:2)
It's really going to be interesting in '08. Everyone and their dog are going to be producing political videos. If you think the Swift Boat twinks were bad, wait until you see what they come up with on the internet. A place they can dispense with all pretense of decorum and spew whatever sewage floats to the surface of the demented minds that will say or do anything to win.
This opens up whole new vistas in trash politics.
Of course, it also opens up the process to those lacking the ability to raise 25
What are they worried about? (Score:3, Informative)
If he really wants to destroy the government, then maybe they should do what they always do with violent rebels...
Anyway, I don't really understand Japanese, so I can't be sure of the subtitles.
I'll bite (Score:5, Informative)
First and foremost, sure, it's illegal by Japanese law. But where does YouTube reside again? There has been little thought regarding the internet and "new media" when in comes to elections and politics in Japan. So little, that it's becoming absurd.
The original election laws were put in place to put an economical cap on elections, and thus leveling the field. Each candidate for the Tokyo metropolitan mayor election needs to pay 3 million yen up front. If they get a certain percentage of votes, the money is returned. (The exact numbers escape me at the moment, but I think it was something along the lines of 10 to 15%.) If they don't, they are "extremist fringes" which shouldn't have ran in the first place. Whether you agree with this concept or not is up to you, but it does have it's advantages. Idiots can still run for office, but they'll waste the money. To be honest, Koichi Toyama fits into the "idiot" profile, but he knew well that the money spent would gather attention, for a fraction of the price of a TV commercial aired in Tokyo. I say he got a bargain. (In his speach, he explicitly states that "If I get elected, the majority will shit their pants. If I get elected, _I_ will shit my pants.")
At least for the Tokyo elections, election posters can only be posted on official boards designated by the election committee. And those posters are paid for through tax dollars (well, yen...). So all candidates get the same exposure, and same number of posters. There is a limit to the number of campaign cars with loud speakers that can roam the streets. There are numerous limits, and I think some of these limits could be imported back to the U.S. for a genuinely level field when it comes to elections. (I'm an ex-pat, by the way.)
That said, the "limit" is so extreme, that candidates are not allowed to pass out flyers of any kind. They are not allowed to post to public areas (including the internet) addressing their political agenda. They cannot mail/e-mail anyone. The best they can do is call their constituents, but even then, they're not allowed to discuss what their political agenda is.
So, how do you determine which candidate to vote for? Well... appearance. Name. Hopefully you heard their speach infront of some train station. Or watched TV. (Contrary to the summary, NHK is not the only broadcaster that broadcasts these speaches. As long as each candidate gets a chance, with the same length and un-edited video, anyone broadcaster can broadcast it.)
Up until now, you really couldn't tell what the candidate was REALLY thinking. Just recently, a candidate from Miyazaki had an idea though. During the election race, homepages cannot be updated. So, he put up his political agenda BEFORE the race started, and left it up. And now, FINALLY, from this election, candidates are allowed to hand out flyers. Again, these flyers are paid for through tax money. Level field.
However, this still doesn't address the fact that YouTube and other CGM-ish media is the exact kind of media that will level the playing grounds in a way that doesn't require economic powers, which the "limits" were placed in for in the first place.
I say let YouTube rule, do no evil, and let this serve as a kick in the ass to the Japanese government as a reminder that this is the 21st century, and getting the "message" out in one way or another is a good thing.
That said, I recently commented on mixi (a Japanese SNS) that all they need to do to get the videos down is to have NHK issue a DMCA take down notice. NHK owns the copyrights. They can issue a DMCA take down notice. (However much you despise that.) And, as far as I can tell, YouTube will comply.
I have a hunch that NHK already knows this, and has forfeited copyrights, or else is playing dumb on purpose. Likewise, the election committee probably knows damn well too. Let's see if this will change the laws any time soon. I for one hope it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the broadcasters show any videos provided by the candidates (within their time limits), or just videos made in their studios for tax yens? Because if you allow any video provided by the candidate (as is the case if you allow YouTube), the candidate with more money will have nicer videos, and that's, I believe, against the spirit of the system there.
My theory is also supported by your statement that the flyers are funded by tax yens.
So the problem with YouTube may be that it allows money to play a r
Block Youtube but lose the goddam sound trucks! (Score:2)
Anyway, I would gladly exchange being unable to see Japanese political speeches online if they would stop using those bloody election sound trucks [youtube.com].
What they are saying... (Score:2)
That's just a worker doing the actual announcement, the politician himself is probably just sitting in the van waving his white-gloved hand. The white glove is supposed to symbolize honesty but Mr. Yoshida has had his own scandals [findarticles.com].
Protecting political speech.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bring them in, don't shut them out (Score:2)
If it is so easy, then shouldn't everyone be able to take part?
Where does it end? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if Google is smart, they'll see this as an opportunity to seriously change the mechanics of elections,... candidates with less money can create a campaign video and upload it to Youtube, which still stands a decent chance of being viewed by a lot of people; versus the candidates with big bucks that can afford to spend ungodly amounts of money be extorted on advertisements on network television. The good news, too, is that Youtube's "viewership" is increasing, quite substantially, especially among the younger crowds. Network television's viewership is really not doing anything; either remaining stagnant, or possibly decreasing, due to all the crap that the network executives idiots keep broadcasting these days.
If there ever was a time when Google's, "Don't be evil," policy applied, I'd say this is it,. . .
How these things go (Score:2)
Slashdotter 2: YOU RACIST!!11! HOW DARE YOU IMPOSE YOUR LAWS ON ANOTHER COUNTRY!!@@ HISS! SPIT!
Slashdotter 1: How am I doing that by just disagreeing with the decision?
Slashdotter 2: YOU CLAIM TO BE EXPERT ON EXPERT ON INTERNATIONAL ISSUES. HA!
Slashdotter 1: Huh? Where did I say that?
Slashdotter 2: RACIST!@ BIGGOT! PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN CULTURES. AARRGH! GROWL!
Slashdotter 1: OK, but do I have to carte blanche agree with every aspect of the
Japanese people don't know how to give the bird (Score:2, Funny)
Prediction (Score:2)
So you'd click on Hillary's link and get, like, Obama. Or Dave Barry.
Actually, that doesn't sound so bad.
Simple Solution (Score:2)
Japan, Mexico, Chicago... (Score:3, Informative)
Sound trucks, not NHK is how most hear about polit (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Are you suggesting that they never pull any videos, or that they pick and choose which videos they pull (which is essentially what they did with Thailand and what they'll do with Japan here)? The actual fact is that, when it comes to foreign laws, they can decide which ones to follow. But what about the laws in their home country (America)? There are quite a few video images that are extremely illegal here; I suspect YouTube's owners could face jail time if they didn't pull those ones. And there are qui
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Let the dominoes fall.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll actually give China some credit here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And just what is "open source governance" -- in detail -- and how would it govern a country of tens of millions better than representative democracy? Is open source governance when the amount of influence you have in government is directly proportional to the resources (read: money) one can
Re:If it's illegal in Japan it's illegal in Japan (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a difference. A TV or radio commercial is something that a party/candidate pays for. Depending on the wealth of the party/candidate, they could easily out-advertise their political competition. The listener/viewer has no choice but to listen to or watch these ads, either. The alternative is switching the media off during election time.
But video on YouTube is passive. Technically it doesn't cost anything. You won't get to see it unless you actively look for it and click "play". The only thing that determines its popularity is the number of times it is viewed. Political affiliation and the wealth of the publisher do not affect the ranking of the video.
What happens if someone tapes a political commercial and plays it back for his guests because he likes it? Should it be illegal to record commercials? Ban video recorders?
What if a political candidate has a website that receives many more hits than all the other candidates? Should websites be banned?
How about polls? Should polls be illegal if they favor one party/candidate over another?
Come on, there's a HUGE difference between paid advertising and some video on YouTube. This is just bickering from the rest of the candidates because of jealousy - so they try to manipulate the system to block this kind of stuff from YouTube instead of figuring out how use this new media to their advantage.
Congratulations for the Anti-American post, however. I missed the "Microsoft Sucks" reference, however. Surely this is all Microsoft's fault.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, there's a HUGE difference between paid advertising and some video on YouTube.
Umm, some videos on YouTube are paid advertisements. Someone paid to create them. People with more money can create more of them and with better production values and with more celebrity endorsements or whatever. Access to YouTube for political statements still favors the wealthiest. A person with sufficient wealth can probably still out advertise and more importantly out smear their opponent.
That said, YouTube exists and there is not a lot that can be done about that. Trying to block it will not work a
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. But you can't be locked out of a medium like YouTube on the grounds that channel time is limited. So it's still possible for an outsider with limited resources, but a good platform and de
Re: (Score:2)