Open main menu

Comments:YouTube accounts of Scientology critics suspended

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading


There are a lot of peopleEdit

There are a lot of people working hard to get WBM's account back up. I am glad that the free media is covering this. It is important for people to realize how much the corporate media is censoring. Rekov - (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Digg ITEdit

Digg IT!. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OddEdit

Odd that the spokesperson said that YouTube doesn't comment on individual videos, but presumably was asked about the reason for suspending an individual account. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 05:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Time to grow some again google?Edit

1st they shut down liberalviewer & removed videos that were fair use, now they pull this. How about they get the balls to stand up to these abusive copyright requests and stick up for their users! Youtube is still my 1st choice for much content but the more stuff like this they pull, the more likely i start going straight to veoh or dailymotion.--82.35.192.193 11:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For more than ten years scientology waged a war against the internet. This time, the internet strikes back and they crumble in fear while resorting to the "marvelous" tech laid by their mad messiah. A tech that was never made to deal with the internet, with a world without secrets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.128.7 (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WTFEdit

YOUTUBE IS BEING TAKEN OVER BY $CIENTOLOGY 124.188.168.143 16:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

youtube TOSEdit

Hello if you wish to read something. Check out the TOS for youtube. Accordingly youtube has the right to b& at their own discretion, only if they find something defamatory or violent etc etc. Section 7 bulletPoint B "B". Unless they can prove that what he did was in violation then they need to reinstate. If they removed it because he was "Going" to do something then that is violation of their own TOS. Cannot Prosecute for something some one said they were going to do, you prosecute under some other charge relevant to the allegations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.138.103 (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube being swamped with emails and callsEdit

http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/234/ - Mark Bunker's blog. He asks people to keep it up. - David Gerard - (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Blown-upEdit

Everything related to Scientology has been way too blown up in my opinion. The Church falsely believes that it is huge and powerful, and the critics are needlessly passionate. I've heard the stories, and they are pretty bad, but there are much bigger things we should be worrying about. In short, Scientology is a minuscule cult that while bad, is too small to deserve this much attention. - w:User:Poe Joe 02:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't wait for cancer to fester. The sooner governments take action against this criminal organization the better.67.70.154.155 03:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)someguy
One can wonder whether the CoS officials suffer from retarded emotional development; it's possible that they are acting like children, not adults. It seems to me that emotionally-mature people respond to adverse criticism rather differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.74.189 (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who's been an active critic of Scientology for a while now ... I fully agree that they are not in fact important - they're small and getting smaller. However, they are such innovators in odiousness that it's useful to learn how to deal with the CoS's latest freshly disgusting action so as to discourage possible imitators. This worked very well in dealing with their attacks on the Internet in the mid-1990s - several similar attacks were nipped in the bud when the CoS critics noticed. And really - the Anonymous protests, overwhelming the CoS with confusion, making "Never Gonna Give You Up" into a protest song ... they're worth it for the theatre value - David Gerard - (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

GoogleEdit

What does scientology think it is doing in censoring freedom of speech. And what is google doing in following scientology. I believe that someone within google or YouTube has been bribed or blackmailed into agreeing to this request.

“Don’t be evil.” It is the motto of Google. If restricting free speech because some violent organisation told you to is not evil, I don’t know what is.

I cannot believe an organisation like google is bowing down to Co$. Since when does a money making cult control our basic human rights? Since when does a money making cult own Google, one of the largest companies in the world? --A101 - (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad newsEdit

I think we're losing YouTube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.167.59 (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How do they continue to get by with this behavior. They have literally tried to destroy people and get by with it. They have put people out of business and beaten people, but they always pretend that they are the offended. They do have a lot of lawyers and cops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.147.144.57 (talkcontribs)

Comments from feedback form - "excellent"Edit

excellent —99.97.82.111 (talk) 05:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

youtube and scientologyEdit

It has been the practice of many to avoid outright criticisms of any religious institution as everyone has a right to believe in a religion without having it directly criticized. It is enough to endorse in a fair way how one might better be objective, creative or empathetic in ones considerations of people and topics without criticizing beliefs that are there to comfort people in a very difficult world. Therefor, if youtube equally protects minorities and religions it can clearly shut down anyone bashing anyone's familial or religious affiliations. Therefor its shutting down of such criticisms especially when they are founded on hearsay and unsupported conjecture is obviously their right and perhaps their duty.

Why not level your criticisms against what you believe are unethical or unscientific procedures of thought and let everyone make up their own minds? Otherwise you just stir up a "hornet's nest" without reason and cause more harm than good. When you have a legal claim against a group take that to law enforcement and not youtube? Consider these options. I have no quarrel with youtube.

Hate posts should be banned.

So, if you wish now to also attack me, fine. Rather, why not make an arguable point?

Savings AccountsEdit

I always read your blogs something everyday because I like your thought and I got much advice after read you. I tell to my other friends about this & it’s blog. I hope you will read my this comment and you will remember me. i want you to always make new articles like this. I appreciate this. Thanks a lot.

=====Edit

Mark01 http://heathsavingsaccounts.com