The British government just will not leave YouTube, the video sharing website which is owned by Google, alone.
A House of Commons select committee recently criticised Google for allowing a video containing questionable content to be uploaded to YouTube (the video was removed after it had been viewed 600 times) and government bodies have also criticised YouTube in the past.
It has also criticised various social networking sites which are not owned or controlled by Google.
Here are a few hard-core facts about YouTube and Google - facts which the British government either isn't aware of or prefers not to disclose:
If you are looking for porn YouTube isn't a good website to visit. I just visited YouTube, typed in `porn', and was asked to log in as a member (no pun intended..porn, member, geddit?)
This is discouraging for a start. Most (but not all) porn sites just require visitors to confirm that they are aged over 18. This just involves clicking on a `yes' button.
I then watched three `pornographic' videos. There was some caressing but none of them displayed any sexual organs and none of them displayed any sexual contact. They didn't even display any bare breasts.
Compare this with some of the output from British TV stations such as the BBC and Channel 4, where sexual contact - heterosexual and homosexual, although admittedly simulated, and bare breasts are sometimes displayed.
Also, compare this this with certain sections of the British media, where bare breasts are obligatory.
By the standards of the British media Google is actually a very conservative, very `prudish' organisation.
Google has an advertising programme called `Adsense'. Some webmasters place Adsense ads. on their sites and receive a certain percentage whenever someone clicks on the ads.
I'm a webmaster and an Adsense publisher, ie. I publish Adsense ads. on my sites. None of my websites display images of sexual organs or sexual contact. I even avoid using the word sex, and any words relating to sex, where possible.
There's a good reason for this.
Within the Adsense publishing community it's a well-known fact that it isn't a good idea to publish any content which Google might find objectionable. It will just refuse to display any ads.
Google does not like sexually-related content of any kind.
The MP's that criticise Google and YouTube should compare it with the output from the British media before they criticise it or reach for their censorship pens.
[Rep]

A lot of MPs are not Internet savvy and don't understand what can and can't be done. They listen to apocryphal stories about grooming, but don't consider the hard work done in other countries to control output so that a lot of what we see is sanitised. They don't understand the innocent pleasure that a lot of social networking sites give to millions of people.

Youtube is a very good site and I have found all sorts of videos that interest me - mainly old comedies and traditional dancing. Many of the videos have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The site could even be a source of votes at the next election, if only UKIP candidates understood the sort of people who are tuning in and pitched their messages accordingly. A sharp production of a humourously presented message with a few young people and some nice music (check rights) would pull in potential voters.

Although a lot of stuff on the net from the former Soviet Union pushes the bounds and probably includes non-consensual sexual material, the USA has forced producers of porn to maintain a list of the models used and to confirm that they are consenting and over 18. That's how responsible sites operate, but our older MPs, and a mass of UKIP supporters, live in a vacuum and don't understand the way the world is changing. If you don't believe me look for websites for our MEP candidates; there is a sound argument that we should not support candidates that don't have a web presence (mine is cr@p and needs updating).

Anthony's politigg site is a classic use of the Internet. It draws feeds from all over the place and people will be viewing it in their tens of thousands already (AB to confirm traffic levels). I'm not saying it will happen, but what if politigg had a milllion regular viewers by the time of the next GE and suddenly linked to all of the candidate websites at the start of the campaign. Those candidates with good websites, a solid Youtube presence and a message presented with punch and style and devoid of typos, poor English and drivel about Bilderbergers and treason will have a massive advantage. Viral marketing works; viral campaigning will work also.
[Rep]

The government can not prevent people from seeing the truth of what is happening in Britain or how the world sees it unless they get rid of sites like you tube. I don’t believe the government really cares about people seeing coped videos unless it is not politically correct. If the internet is controlled the last place for true freedom of expression will disappear and I don’t think even a nationalist government should try and control it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by The Nationalist:
The government can not prevent people from seeing the truth of what is happening in Britain or how the world sees it unless they get rid of sites like you tube. I don’t believe the government really cares about people seeing coped videos unless it is not politically correct. If the internet is controlled the last place for true freedom of expression will disappear and I don’t think even a nationalist government should try and control it.

I don't share your faith in any government! I think the day any government thinks the Internet is beginning to have a big enough affect to sway public opinion against them, they'll somehow shut it down! I haven't got the technical knowledge to know how they'll do it , but do it they will. Remember politicians are in politics for one thing and one thing only, 'Power'! I've no idea if the quotation of , "never believe anything you hear and only half you see", is about politicians, but it certainly fits them!
[Rep]

That is one of the reasons us nationalists / civic nationalists believe that the nation should be put before government interests.

Government is meant to help fever the needs of the nations not the state or the global elite. Many died to end the monarchy and give the people a voice through government now people are happy for there voice to be taken away and civil war may once again take place once people realise there mistake.
[Rep]

Video on the internet has created a headache for the government because it is so difficult to control. Broadcasters are censored and sales of DVDs and video tapes are governed by the Video Recordings Act. What makes things more difficult is that video material stored on webservers in a foreign country are governed by the laws of that country and not Britain. If YouTube gets censored then controversial video material will just move elsewhere. Anybody can set up another YouTube providing they have a big hard drive and a very fast internet connection.

The Video Recordings Act did a fine job at cracking down on video nasties back in the 80s, but it cannot easily be extended to the internet.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by kernow:
I don't share your faith in any government! I think the day any government thinks the Internet is beginning to have a big enough affect to sway public opinion against them, they'll somehow shut it down! I haven't got the technical knowledge to know how they'll do it , but do it they will. Remember politicians are in politics for one thing and one thing only, 'Power'! I've no idea if the quotation of , "never believe anything you hear and only half you see", is about politicians, but it certainly fits them!

Please Listen up very carefully people.....

Whilst the mainstream media, plays hippocrite and bemoans China for media censorship,

They are moving to shut down the internet right NOW.

Why ?
Simply because the crimes of the New World order and the establishment are being exposed by the truth of the alternative media and they are racing as fast as they can to shut down the last vestige of free expression.


If you aren't aware of what's going on then follow this very important link !
Also see my other posts relating to net neutrailty.

Censoring the Internet: A Collection of Essential Links

Spread the word far and wide - THIS IS IMPORTANT !!!!!

People should remember that despite the negative mainstream media propaganda people may hear about the wickedness of net neutral sites like youtube, these sites act as checks and balances with video footage of otherwise uncovered media events e.g. so if a policeman acts illegally on camera he can be recorded, and it can be put into the public view.

That's just one very small example, but whatever your political persuation, if they shut down the internet as we know it, the only sites you will be able to access will be a select band of a few thousand corporate sites.

If you don't act now by spreading the word about this, you can kiss goodbye to the Democracy forum, your own website or any other website that doesn't come under the censorship hammer.

So remain ignorant if you like, but your days of web browsing will be over as you know it and there will be no more "net neutraility".

Whether you beleive so called "conspiracy theories" or not, this is going to affect you personally.

Do you understand ?
[Rep]

The weak spot happens to be the ISPs. These are the gateway to the internet for ordinary users and are now consolidated to a few multinational companies such as BT or Virgin that will play ball with the government.

It is very difficult for governments to control material at internet backbone level. The solution is to somehow create millions of small links between ordinary users and the internet backbone. Wi-Max technology could be of help.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Aardvark:
A lot of MPs are not Internet savvy and don't understand what can and can't be done. They listen to apocryphal stories about grooming, but don't consider the hard work done in other countries to control output so that a lot of what we see is sanitised. They don't understand the innocent pleasure that a lot of social networking sites give to millions of people.

Youtube is a very good site and I have found all sorts of videos that interest me - mainly old comedies and traditional dancing. Many of the videos have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times. The site could even be a source of votes at the next election, if only UKIP candidates understood the sort of people who are tuning in and pitched their messages accordingly. A sharp production of a humourously presented message with a few young people and some nice music (check rights) would pull in potential voters.

Although a lot of stuff on the net from the former Soviet Union pushes the bounds and probably includes non-consensual sexual material, the USA has forced producers of porn to maintain a list of the models used and to confirm that they are consenting and over 18. That's how responsible sites operate, but our older MPs, and a mass of UKIP supporters, live in a vacuum and don't understand the way the world is changing. If you don't believe me look for websites for our MEP candidates; there is a sound argument that we should not support candidates that don't have a web presence (mine is cr@p and needs updating).

Anthony's politigg site is a classic use of the Internet. It draws feeds from all over the place and people will be viewing it in their tens of thousands already (AB to confirm traffic levels). I'm not saying it will happen, but what if politigg had a milllion regular viewers by the time of the next GE and suddenly linked to all of the candidate websites at the start of the campaign. Those candidates with good websites, a solid Youtube presence and a message presented with punch and style and devoid of typos, poor English and drivel about Bilderbergers and treason will have a massive advantage. Viral marketing works; viral campaigning will work also.

Stories about grooming are not made up they are all to real, as is treason you seem only to happy to underplay those things which do actually cause harm to individuals and the state as a whole
[Rep]

Twizzel, I've missed you.

I don't say that grooming doesn't happen, but that there are a lot of well meaning MPs who listen to unreliable stories and think that the net is plagued by people grooming children day and night, whereas 99.99% of the stuff on social networking sites is harmless and often very beneficial. The point is about MPs not understanding what is happening and believing stories of uncertain origin. Let's face it there are people in this country who will believe anything and will take action on it - remember the morons who attacked a paediatrician's house as if paedophiles have signs on the door.

I don't underplay grooming, it's just that it is not being done day and night by millions of people on Youtube or any of the social networking sites, although I do wish the notionally gorgeous and pouting girls from eastern Europe would stop trying to make me their best friend (probably old blokes trying to get me to say something I can be blackmailed for).

I don't underplay treason. If I thought someone had committed a treasonable act within the last 3 years and I had clear proof that would warrant an investigation I would of course go to the Attorney General's Department and make a complaint; I would not take a bundle of dated material, poorly annotated and not providing any real proof to the local nick and ask them to interview a load of dead people.
[Rep]