“The state exists for man, not man for the state. The same may be said of science. These are old phrases, coined by people who saw in human individuality the highest human value. I would hesitate to repeat them, were it not for the ever recurring danger that they may be forgotten, especially in these days of organization and stereotypes.”

This quote by Einstein is just as applicable today, and can be extended to corporations and their use, control and manipulation of the people, for their own financial and political gains.

Would you agree that the mainstream media represents reality poorly and in a relatively biased manner?

If you do, then you are also likely to agree that the information we get from the mainstream media is greatly informed and determined by the interests of the investors in these multi-national mega corporations, that dominate this industry. I am not saying that there are no alternatives to the mainstream, simply highlighting the types of sources of information from which the ‘majority’ of the people will base their opinion.

This domination by mega corporations, is no different from the so far succeful attempt by certain other corporations to dominate the internet – video sharing, blogging etc… If this is successful, then we are under a very real threat of losing, as Esra’a has pointed out, our right to free speech on one of the most popular, most effective means of communication we have today.

If what we have to say is not in line with or somehow upsets the ‘investors’ and their cash flow, then we are silenced and crushed, or so much easier with technology now.. ‘erased’. Do we really want an ‘internets’ that looks like the mainstream media?? Do we really want the people’s only source of information to be guided by the standard of thought and discussion that is available on the mainstream media?

Why should we only expect to receive something adequate if we are willing to pay a huge fee? The internet can’t just become another area that capitalism can dominate and/or destroy.

They have a lot of responsibilities.

A big part of which is user satisfaction.

It’s a big company with very big operations.

Murad, this is the WHOLE POINT! It is a big and growing company owning and recording our every move which they can turn in to the relevant authorities when threatened to do so (with something even as simple as a “blockage.”) Because God forbid they lose traffic/profits. I mean even if you want to avoid using Google, every freakin’ tab has a Google search on it, on most websites, and they’re shoving their butts in everyone’s businesses wanting a piece of the action.

It’s like a cancerous tumor growing on the internet, and it’s time for us to convince it to take some medication if it doesn’t calm down. We don’t want to lose the war for free speech on the internet.

the tagline is “broadcast yourself,” after all, and this includes incredible bores with no lives.

Too bad 70% of YouTube is a bunch of 13 year olds talking about Paris Hilton’s new hairdo (leik ohmygosh, pink is sooo in!). There’s lots of trash on that site, videos I wish I can just crumble up and throw against the wall. And it’s fine that they’re on there, the tagline is “broadcast yourself,” after all, and this includes incredible bores with no lives. But then we see real videos, ones that hold much importance, being removed from the database for reasons that are very unclear. YouTube’s got some explaining to do to the public at least!

A public and sincere apology is the least they can do. Google used to be good at that, remember? “We’re sorry that we gave in to censorship in China!” after people began questioning their ethics. And then, “we’re sorry that Jew Watch comes first for ‘Jew’ in Google search!” so how about “yes, we wrongly suspended a member’s account and made him lose all his videos and we’re sorry for that, too!” it’s not so hard and would help us restore our faith in their services at least.

I’m not losing any sleep or money by the way these corps go about their businesses.

No, but you’re losing certain rights and privileges, as well as access to lots of information.

The people who need professional platforms and community-based like YouTube for their activism are usually not the ones who can just “do it themselves.” If you have an urgent video to share, the best way to do it is through YouTube where it can be circulated throughout the site, favorited, and linked by thousands within just a few hours.

If they’re gonna be policemen about it fine, let them. They should remove all the freedom-loving jargons from their mission statements. If they keep this up they can be credited with being a younger version of News Corp.

I disagree with it.

Google is a multi-billion dollar internet company. They continue to buy off smaller companies and thus placing a growing part of the internet under a monopoly. Sure, we have “alternatives,” it’s not like they’re any better. Especially since Google’s philosophy is all about “freedom,” have you ever read “The Google Story” by David Vice? It’s all about marketing Google as a positive philosophy; how the company was built on “dreams” and blah blah. We are not so happy with what’s going on, and frankly it’s our right as users to complain.

I compare what’s happening right now on the internet with what happened years ago and what continues to happen with the 6 big corporations owning most of the mainstream news outlets in the USA (news agencies or film companies that have a big impact internationally as well.) It limits free speech, discourages public participation, and misleads public opinion. We become mindless automatons just being talked to.

We have no choice but to use sites like YouTube to express our messages. It’s an important platform for us, and we don’t want to lose it merely because it’s free of charge anyways and we have no choice but to swallow everything its administration does.

I’m just saying that Google is becoming increasingly disappointing, for such a huge company with growing influence in everything that we do online. Not just with YouTube but with blogspot, gmail, etc. Consider this recent story:

An anonymous reader alerts us to a story out of Israel in which Google (its Israeli subsidiary) gave up the IP address of a Blogger user without being compelled to do so by a court.

Should we be worried?

Yes we should.

Google didn’t develop these sites in the first place. They buy them off, and will continue to do so. Many people started using YouTube way before Google got their grubby hands on it; ditto with blogspot. These are all essential platforms of free speech which Google is interfering with through its big $$ which it seemingly places ahead of its mission.

It’s inconvenient to rely on sites like YouTube, Facebook, etcetc, but these sites are available for us free of charge. The TOS implies that they DO hold rights to remove any video which they deem questionable. If we don’t like it, too bad. 100 other video hosts to pick from. Don’t you think? Just because we lose viewership doesn’t mean they’re guilty of censorship. They got rules and we have to abide by them if we want to use their service. This is true for any site.