Posted on 05/15/2008 5:37:59 AM PDT by DieHard the Hunter
For me, the Smack Down has highlighted the dangerous role that the Enemedia have played and are actively playing in the War on Terror -- whether inadvertently or on purpose, who is to say? It is clear that their activities are not benign.
Naturally, this profound discovery will be nothing of news to FReepers -- I half-expect to be awarded a "Master of the Obvious" graphic -- yet evidently it must be something that, for some bizarre reason, the "rest of the world" both in America and globally, seem to either tolerate or care not one whit about: otherwise it would stop immediately. It has also highlighted that there may be opportunity to give effect to an "operational paradigm shift" (or an "Attitude Adjustment") to at least one of the Enemedia members, as well as cause some considerable incovenience to the Enemy beyond removing their videos.
Not wanting to hijack the Smacking Down You Tube Terrorists Thread and divert energy and focus from this valuable activity, I felt it might be productive to discuss a couple of ancillary-yet-related matters off to one side, on this "Vanity" thread -- I hope that is OK.
This assertion is evidenced by the wanton disregard that is apparent to those who look for it. In this particular case, YouTube has been told -- many, many times -- by our "Smack Down" teams that "Providing services to terrorists violates executive orders 12947 and 13224": indeed, this is the message that our Smack Down posts provide them verbatim.
One would think that a good Corporate Citizen, in the face of being made aware that their business is operating in contravention of Executive Orders during a time of war, would immediately invoke proactive Risk Management activities and begin screening their business operations to ensure that these non-compliances can never happen in future.
Apparently, not so for YouTube.
Now, it may seem a trifle unfair to single YouTube out in this manner, particularly as this passivity is common and shared by many media outlets. But it is a timely example, one that is easily demonstrated by our current Smack Down activities.
The last time I checked, "Executive Orders" were rather important: they aren't "Executive Suggestions" that are to be optionally adopted if one feels like it, they are to be adopted "Or Else". The President and senior lawmakers in the US have a reasonable expectation that these Instructions are carried out fully and willingly by all decent Citizens.
More than that, a decent citizen, conducting his/her business prudently, would naturally view inadvertent contravention of Executive Orders as a very serious matter indeed that requires immediate and decisive action, and would take proactive steps to ensure that an inadvertent breach of these orders were addressed permanently, so that they could not recur.
Not so with YouTube, apparently.
The Smack Down has been running for about a month now, and it remains quite simple for Terrorists to post their propaganda on YouTube. We see no evidence of any additional proactivity in their risk management surrounding these Executive Orders: it appears to be "business as usual".
Despite having been signaled that, by providing services for free to terrorists they are in contravention of Executive Orders 12947 and 13224, they continue to manage this risk with the same level of importance as, say, your average copyright violation. It remains up to the general public to complain and, in due course, they may take action if enough complaints are received.
Ensuring an adequate level of complaint is, in effect, what our Smack Down ensures.
However, is this Good Enough from YouTube -- particularly as these services have the effect of providing aid and comfort to the Enemy during a time of War? And by implication the lives of the members of the Armed Forces of the Coalition of the Willing are put in needless jeopardy as a result?
Speaking personally, I think not. I am of the view that this laissez faire approach to Executive Order compliance is unfortunate, if not lamentable and indeed dam'nable. Just possibly they may even be treasonous.
Fulminating on this subject is cathartic -- this is one of the reasons for this Vanity. But it does raise for me a suggestion that the opportunity may be ripe to score an additional decisive blow toward Executive Order compliance, and perhaps by so doing make a public example of an Enemy Domestic, to encourage the others. If successful, a needed paradigm shift may occur within media circles -- which would surely be a Good Thing.
But how?
If a "crime", then it raises the obvious question: "What are the authorities doing about this?" -- because Law Enforcement is an ambit that properly belongs with LEAs. Fortunately, America has several LEAs whose ambit could surely include investigating the provision of services to enemy propagandists: the FBI being the most obvious.
If a "tort", then it raises another obvious question: "who is being damaged, and what is the estimate of these liquidated damages?"
Both answers suggest that a good form of recourse may include the potential for court action. There is nothing like a lawyer's letter to "christianize" the activities of wayward individuals, be they private citizens or corporate entities.
So how do we find out if either of these are practical avenues? I don't know -- that's a matter for discussion.
Are there any other avenues that can be pursued in parallel with the Smack Down?
I found this idea from usmcobra very appealing. I wonder if it can be expanded somewhat, and if there would be some merit to doing so?
Essentially, usmcobra's idea is to provide a video response to the terrorist videos, and these responses tend to remain even after the video is made "Private" (have I got that right, mate?)
I wonder if a variation on that theme might work as well: once a Terrorist Video is taken down, one of us "steals" their posting title (eg "IED Blows up HumVee -- Very Funny!", and maybe even steals one of their screen shots, and sets up a new account (eg "Achmed the Dead Terrorist"), and then posts a completely different "good propaganda" video clip in its place (say, "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" -- tho' there's probably copyright issues around that particular example.)
That would tend to undermine their efforts in re-posting the removed videos, as it would be difficult for them to tell which one is the real thing and which is fake, until they clicked on it... And if we used the right propaganda videos (ie ones that they cannot possibly complain about) then the effect would last pretty much forever...
Are there any other ideas?
The correct answer to that objection is "Rubbish! Since when has 'practicality' had anything to do with legal compliance?" Try telling the IRS that it isn't 'practical' for you to pay your taxes this year: a quick frog-march and perp-walk awaits you if you do. You will comply with US Tax Law OR ELSE.
The nail-in-the-coffin to that argument is added by way of bonus points: there is absolutely no reason why YouTube cannot have somebody hired full-time to do precisely what we are doing part-time, as Volunteers. We are doing a commendable job: StarCMC identifies the targets and we all jump in and "FReep the Poll", so to speak. YouTube (owned by Google) can surely afford to have somebody do that! They are a huge, very wealthy organization.
On the subject of court action, whenever lawyers get involved that gets expensive: well beyond most people's pockets. So that, too, can be an objection: it just isn't practical.
There's no real way to get around this objection, short of finding the right sponsor. One with deep pockets and an interest in seeing the matter thru the courts.
For Criminal prosecutions, that would be the FBI, perhaps. Or they tell me the US Army has a few bucks and a couple of competent lawyers. They might want a brief diversion from their usual Courts Martial activities, who knows?
For Civil prosecutions, that would be the class of persons aggrieved. Military families come to mind immediately -- but what about the average US Taxpayer? And taxpayers overseas? Aren't we aggrieved by terrorists receiving services from a US-based company? Who is paying for the WOT anyway? Does this suggest a Class Action lawsuit?
I don't know -- these are just some thoughts I assembled from activities arising from our Smack Down. What say you to this?
None of this could possibly have happened in WW-II. But since then, the Enemedia have been acting, either deliberately or thru neglect, on behalf of the Enemy as a propaganda tool. How can that be stopped?
PING — a side-discussion that explores issues arising from the excellent Smack Down thread. I didn’t want to remove focus from that thread or alter the topics of discussion by exploring these wider issues there: that would be hijacking.
A few matters arose, tho’, and I wonder if they be worthy of further exploration, here?
Interested in your thoughts.
*DieHard*
Ping...Enemies foreign/domestic on the web...action alert?
I’m gathering my video clips and assorted sound bytes of heavy breathing Muslims chanting Allah Akubar now and will paste them together later.
I don’t know if it would do much good to take the exact title from a removed video. Since once the link is removed the new video with the same name would not take its place. I haven’t been taking part in the Smack Down, so haven’t been paying attention, but here is an idea:
Check out the subscribers to the terrorist channel. Once their account is removed they probably send a link to all their old subscribers when they get a new account. Might be a good idea to start a new account for yourself and subscribe to the terrorist channel. Maybe you will be one of the first to see their next video. Maybe you will be able to get their next account banned within hours.
> Check out the subscribers to the terrorist channel. Once their account is removed they probably send a link to all their old subscribers when they get a new account. Might be a good idea to start a new account for yourself and subscribe to the terrorist channel. Maybe you will be one of the first to see their next video. Maybe you will be able to get their next account banned within hours.
(giggle!) That’s a great idea! Probably need a few accounts and spread them around the channels, else they could easily figure out who the Judas was by a process of elimination. Probably also need to stay subscribed for a wee while and keep a lo profile for the same reason: then spring forth Chaos and disappear...
It might be more effective to get on their “friends” list. That way you get an email when they “share” videos or “check out this channel”. But you would have to build up credibility, post videos of some type or other, have several video favorites, subscribe to a number of other channels, etc.
I wanted it to be a stealth video where every thing starts out as one would expect and then goes horribly wrong.
> I wanted it to be a stealth video where every thing starts out as one would expect and then goes horribly wrong.
ROTFLMAOPMP!
Dunno which one of the wee clips is my favorite: they’re all CLASSIC! That idiot cooking off the mortar tube — I guess that’s one of the occupational hazards of being a Terrorist, ay.
But I guess it’s really got to be the toilet-block-perp-walk: I thought it was a joke video to begin with: you know, how SWAT teams use the toilet or something like that. But not so! There was actually a Bad Head in there, and suddenly Mohammed Al-Mashat himself when the four armed US Soldiers stormed into his cubicle. Tee-hee-hee! Not Funny but! Not Funny at all!! (yes it is! It’s HELL FUNNY!) I bet he had a mess to clean up! LOL!
Crikey! I gotta watch that one again! Life sucks when you’re a Terrorist ay...
Allah Fubar!
I am increasingly of the view that YouTube presents itself as a unique opportunity: as a member of the MSM it is both a very soft target and a target-rich environment if we wanted to encourage them to amend their practises.
If we ever wanted to cure an MSM of bad habits, it could never get easier than this. And the timing is pretty good, too.
It is not at all difficult to prove that they are (wittingly or no) providing services to Terrorists in contravention of the executive orders. And they are doing nothing proactive to prevent these breaches: they rely upon a multitude of complaints before they will do anything.
As I said earlier, “practicality” has little or nothing to do with one’s requirement to abide by the laws of the land. If their business model makes it difficult to review content beforemaking it public, too bad!
Can you imagine that argument working for a TV station, for example? “Uhhhh, jeez Judge! We didn’t know that he wanted to broadcast Kiddie Porn on the 6 o’clock news! We get hundreds of stories every hour to sort out — it’s just not PRACTICAL for us to review them all...”
I can’t imagine that argument working too well, somehow. How different is that to what YouTube are doing with the terrorist videos? I dunno, but instinctively for me there is very little difference conceptually.
Similarly, when you know or should have known jolly well that there is a significant risk of harm, and yet you elect to do nothing or ignore it, there is a term for that: it is called “Negligence”. And when you do so brazenly, it is called “Recklessness”.
Interestingly, few courts in the world take a very sympathetic view to Recklessness and Negligence when they are used as defences. I wonder why?
Do the processes that are in place already ensure that terrorists don’t get to use their services? Hardly. Does they get a pass on their degree of diligence in screening their material out? It would be difficult to see how they could. Does that satisfy the standard for “negligence” and/or “recklessness?” Who knows? — I don’t. But it would be truly difficult to describe it as “diligence”, wouldn’t it?
Their sole measures that are in place appear to rely upon the “Terms of Use” — in other words, contract law — and passive enforcement. Instinctively, that does not seem like a very robust Risk Management technique.
Getting YouTube to proactively police their own content may just be as simple as writing a stern letter to the CEO, pointing out the problem and advising him that, over the past month, nearly 100 terrorist videos have been identified on their site and, additionally, it has been a very difficult matter to get them pulled in compliance with the Executive Orders, and that we have proof and what does he intend to do about that?
It could be that the CEO doesn’t know that there is a problem, and that as a result he might issue orders to fix their processes.
If it is that simple — excellent! We have cured one member of the MSM, and we can then take the same approach with the next one: search their sites for non-compliance, Freep their Polls, and then write to their CEO.
And, naturally, if they put up a fight, well... they might find the courts make an example of them to encourage the others. Wouldn’t that be interesting.
Those are some of my thoughts, anyrate. What do you think?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.