Thursday, June 26, 2008
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Religion - Marcus Brigstocke
Slightly off topic but not that much - this video is a five stars humorous but true criticism of Abrahamic religions.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Mark Bunker's YouTube Accounts Reinstated
Last june 6, YouTube restored the two accounts of Mark Bunker, xenuTV and XenuTV1.
The first account, XenuTV, was suspended by YouTube in early February after Viacom filed two DMCA requests.
The first DMCA was for a Colbert clip on Scientology, “Scientology: Wag of the Finger”, submitted February 2, 2007.
The second was for another Colbert clip, “Scientology: Is Will Smith a Scientologist?”, submitted January 15, 2008.
Within an hour of the second take down notice, Bunker received another one, this time from the Church of Scientology, for the infamous Tom Cruise video which he hosted on a private account.
Both account (xenutv and the private account) were taken down before Bunker even had the time to comply with the request.
You will remember that Viacom is suing Google (which acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion last year) for 1 billion dollars for copyright infringement. Google therefore pays particular attention to these kind of demands.
Mark Bunker started over by opening another YouTube account, xenutv1, and uploaded only his own self produced clips. About a week later, the Anonymous movement started in response to YouTube’s removal of the Tom Cruise tape. It is at this time that Mark made his historic video in which he urged Anonymous to choose legal ways of protesting Scientology rather than hacking sites of the CoS. This boosted his xenutv1 audience from 3,000 subscribers to more than 10,000.
What Mark didn't know, however, was that because his first xenutv account was canceled, he was not supposed to create a second account. This went unnoticed until April, when someone drew the attention of YouTube on the existence of this new account. Because of this, and because Mark was a "repeat infringers" (two notices from Viacom and one from the CoS), Google took down xenutv1 as well. Google would not say who the informer was but claimed that this person did not represent Scientology. The fact that two days earlier YouTube had banned (then reinstated) a channel run by Tory Christman, another outspoken Scientology critic, was deemed as coincidental.
A wave of protest to YouTube and Viacom by Anonymous and Scientology critics ensued, but YouTube would not restore the channel unless Viacom retracted its complain, which it wouldn't do either.
YouTube however invited Bunker to file counter-notifications for the Viacom clips, and he did so in mid-May, asserting that the “mistake or misidentification of the material” was in not recognizing its use as fair. From then on, Viacom had two weeks to either retract its complain or file suit. Lawyer for Viacom called Bunker and advised they won't make an issue over this. When they failed to file suit past the two weeks delay, YouTube reinstated both xenutv and xenutv1.
Links:
The first account, XenuTV, was suspended by YouTube in early February after Viacom filed two DMCA requests.
The first DMCA was for a Colbert clip on Scientology, “Scientology: Wag of the Finger”, submitted February 2, 2007.
The second was for another Colbert clip, “Scientology: Is Will Smith a Scientologist?”, submitted January 15, 2008.
Within an hour of the second take down notice, Bunker received another one, this time from the Church of Scientology, for the infamous Tom Cruise video which he hosted on a private account.
Both account (xenutv and the private account) were taken down before Bunker even had the time to comply with the request.
You will remember that Viacom is suing Google (which acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion last year) for 1 billion dollars for copyright infringement. Google therefore pays particular attention to these kind of demands.
Mark Bunker started over by opening another YouTube account, xenutv1, and uploaded only his own self produced clips. About a week later, the Anonymous movement started in response to YouTube’s removal of the Tom Cruise tape. It is at this time that Mark made his historic video in which he urged Anonymous to choose legal ways of protesting Scientology rather than hacking sites of the CoS. This boosted his xenutv1 audience from 3,000 subscribers to more than 10,000.
What Mark didn't know, however, was that because his first xenutv account was canceled, he was not supposed to create a second account. This went unnoticed until April, when someone drew the attention of YouTube on the existence of this new account. Because of this, and because Mark was a "repeat infringers" (two notices from Viacom and one from the CoS), Google took down xenutv1 as well. Google would not say who the informer was but claimed that this person did not represent Scientology. The fact that two days earlier YouTube had banned (then reinstated) a channel run by Tory Christman, another outspoken Scientology critic, was deemed as coincidental.
A wave of protest to YouTube and Viacom by Anonymous and Scientology critics ensued, but YouTube would not restore the channel unless Viacom retracted its complain, which it wouldn't do either.
YouTube however invited Bunker to file counter-notifications for the Viacom clips, and he did so in mid-May, asserting that the “mistake or misidentification of the material” was in not recognizing its use as fair. From then on, Viacom had two weeks to either retract its complain or file suit. Lawyer for Viacom called Bunker and advised they won't make an issue over this. When they failed to file suit past the two weeks delay, YouTube reinstated both xenutv and xenutv1.
Links:
- DMCA “Repeat Infringers”: Scientology Critic’s Account Reinstated after Counter-Notification
- Mark Bunker video announcing his return and explaining the background
- Mark Bunker blog with background of events
- Anti-Scientology crusader vaporized from YouTube
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Kendra Wiseman
On March 7, 2008, I read the story of Kendra Wiseman and made a page about it. Her story is long but as she is such a wonderful writer, it really is an easy read throughout. I was impressed not only by her style but also by the intelligence and moderation of her criticism – while she was still being able to bring on the full emotional impact of drama involved in a situation where religious views between generations differ, especially in a context where the religion in question has a cultish slant to it. This brought me to write a “Please don’t disconnect” appeal to her parents, which is still on my page for historic reasons.
On March 10, 2008, Kendra posted that her parents wrote to her and that they are talking again for the first time in years. I have not the slightest idea whether my page helped or not but this is irrelevant. The mere fact that her parents went againts what everybody expected from them is by itself an event to be applauded.
Friday, June 6, 2008
YouTomb
YouTomb is a research project by MIT Free Culture that tracks videos taken down from YouTube for alleged copyright violation. YouTomb is currently monitoring 232,383 videos, and has identified 5,218 videos taken down for alleged copyright violation and 17,160 videos taken down for other reasons.
This may seem like many but Viacom, the owner of Paramount Comedy and Nickelodeon TV channels, claims that more than 150,000 copyright clips on Youtube had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Viacom is threatening Google with a one billion dollar lawsuit.
This may seem like many but Viacom, the owner of Paramount Comedy and Nickelodeon TV channels, claims that more than 150,000 copyright clips on Youtube had been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Viacom is threatening Google with a one billion dollar lawsuit.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Two Funny Posts
One is from a Scientologist, Kat, contrasting a man's way of doing things, with a typical woman's way.
The other is by a critic, Astrid, describing how her would-be German secret agent, supposed to control her, is to meet her.
Enjoy :-)
The other is by a critic, Astrid, describing how her would-be German secret agent, supposed to control her, is to meet her.
Enjoy :-)
Cult Description by J. R. Eiser
Social Psychologist J. R. Eiser, has a good description of cultic characteristics that can be applied to many groups, including Scientology and Anonymous. One would need to have at least some experience in dealing with critics to see how these apply. My comments on how it applies to Anonymous (Scientology is obvious) are in parenthesis below the numeric points.
(1) An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.
(Note: Obvious among anons. One may also remember ARS in its early days. Similar optimism, enthusiasm and feeling of invulnerability were displayed.)
(2) Collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.
(Note: I have seen and been in communication with a couple of anons who got to think a bit deeper than the assertions they found on critical web sites. Expression of these doubts in the anons community was indeed subject to group pressure to rationalize them away.)
(3) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
(4) Stereotyped views of rivals and enemies as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.
(5) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.
(Note: this is extremely prevalent in ARS, OCMB or other Old Guard or Anonymous fora. Try it out for the Lulz and you will see this mechanism triggering itself very quickly!)
(6) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimise to himself the importance of his doubts and counter-arguments.
(7) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgements conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).
(8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
(1) An illusion of invulnerability, shared by most or all the members, which creates excessive optimism and encourages taking extreme risks.
(Note: Obvious among anons. One may also remember ARS in its early days. Similar optimism, enthusiasm and feeling of invulnerability were displayed.)
(2) Collective efforts to rationalise in order to discount warnings which might lead the members to reconsider their assumptions before they recommit themselves to their past policy decisions.
(Note: I have seen and been in communication with a couple of anons who got to think a bit deeper than the assertions they found on critical web sites. Expression of these doubts in the anons community was indeed subject to group pressure to rationalize them away.)
(3) An unquestioned belief in the group's inherent morality, inclining the members to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of their decisions.
(4) Stereotyped views of rivals and enemies as too evil to warrant genuine attempts to negotiate, or as too weak and stupid to counter whatever risky attempts are made to defeat their purposes.
(5) Direct pressure on any member who expresses strong arguments against any of the group's stereotypes, illusions, or commitments, making clear that this type of dissent is contrary to what is expected of all loyal members.
(Note: this is extremely prevalent in ARS, OCMB or other Old Guard or Anonymous fora. Try it out for the Lulz and you will see this mechanism triggering itself very quickly!)
(6) Self-censorship of deviations from the apparent group consensus, reflecting each member's inclination to minimise to himself the importance of his doubts and counter-arguments.
(7) A shared illusion of unanimity concerning judgements conforming to the majority view (partly resulting from self-censorship of deviations, augmented by the false assumption that silence means consent).
(8) The emergence of self-appointed mindguards - members who protect the group from adverse information that might shatter their shared complacency about the effectiveness and morality of their decisions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
