Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
YouTube rolls out Scientology double standard
theregister.co.uk — It seems that YouTube has one set of rules for The Church of Scientology and another set for Scientology's critics.
PL3NTY- 489 diggs
- digg it
- whadu4, on 05/02/2008, -21/+0Haha, nice YT, just nice.
http://brokencontrollers.com/forums/-t13966.php - PL3NTY, on 05/02/2008, -2/+46Scientology is back on YouTube. This time, it's paying for the account. It's also paying for ads on the site...
- SuperWinner, on 05/02/2008, -0/+11Well google did say one of its goals was to make youtube profitable... taking money from evil, murdering, brainwashing cults Is a step in the right direction.
- xirtap, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1God damn M$-- wait what the hell is going on here!?
- SuperWinner, on 05/02/2008, -0/+11Well google did say one of its goals was to make youtube profitable... taking money from evil, murdering, brainwashing cults Is a step in the right direction.
- Meatz, on 05/02/2008, -2/+56If you look at the scientology channel's awards, you can see that it's listed as a sponsor of YouTube. I find it worrying that an organization known for it's suppression of free speech throughout the past decades is a sponsor for something that's supposed to act as the single most important and open forum of free speech. That's just insane.
- aliengoods, on 05/02/2008, -0/+7The internet is the single most important and open forum of free speech. Youtube is a corporate entity that values the dollar. So much for 'do no evil'.
- Crabsinmypants, on 05/02/2008, -3/+4I thought YouTube was bought to make money for Google, not to preserve the rights of the people of America. It's insane that you would think any less of a company whose sole interest should be the shareholders who invested in it, and most shareholders I bet want a return on the money that they invested, i would. So plead with the government to make a clone of YouTube if you think Google will not continue to post your content. Your using their equipment, and like you they have a right to say no to whomever they wish, thats their freedom.
- SantafromNorth, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Media outlets including the internet are part of the public trust in terms of First Amendment rights and those institutions should have n ethical interest in preserving diversity of thought and acting against censorship. The "for profit" motive in media is one reason why US citizens are so manipulated.
- Crabsinmypants, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2 Google is not preventing you from going to other sites to express your view point, you still have the freedom of speech on the internet, like here you just expressed your viewpoint. IF you lose trust in a media company because you see them dabbling in a profits game, than stop using their capital, equipment, products. As long as you try to restrict owners rights to do what he/she likes with his/her business than you are encroaching on their rights. Complain what you will with free speech being manipulated, but its people such as yourself who are doing this. Start your own newspaper, website, radio station, T.V. Station, and give people your opinionated truth, you are free to do so, but don't complain that you do not have the capital to do so, because Rupert Murdoch showed the world that a man with a dream can own nearly quarter of the media in America even if he has little capital at the start.
- SantafromNorth, on 05/03/2008, -1/+1Media outlets including the internet are part of the public trust in terms of First Amendment rights and those institutions should have n ethical interest in preserving diversity of thought and acting against censorship. The "for profit" motive in media is one reason why US citizens are so manipulated.
- dyfferent, on 05/02/2008, -2/+42Speech isn't free--how could we think it was, even on the internet. He with the most money gets the platform.
Google, I think you just broke your own "don't be evil" rule.- fcrow, on 05/02/2008, -3/+1Google and Viacom, but they might have their reasons for this,
- Duggan360, on 05/02/2008, -0/+1If speech was free i wouldnt have to pay for my texts or ringing people =(
- SgtAl, on 05/02/2008, -2/+28I'm sure if Mark Bunker had given YouTube an ass-load of money that he had swindled out of delusional people then his YouTube channel would have never been canceled. The only problem with that is that Mark is to ethical to swindle people and that YouTube, like any other business will cater to who ever is paying the most.
- anawnymoose, on 05/02/2008, -3/+23Are they even pretending to "do no evil" anymore?
There goes my adsense account. - noseeme, on 05/02/2008, -1/+21God (Xenu) damn. They basically BOUGHT Mark Bunker's (Wise Beard Man) ban.
- Ishmael, on 05/02/2008, -1/+24Great. What in the hell happened to "DON'T BE EVIL" eh Mr Googley?
- theNazz, on 05/02/2008, -1/+20Don't be evil unless they have a lot of money and power to offer you...
- orry486, on 05/02/2008, -1/+16screw those guys
- diggermcdigger, on 05/02/2008, -1/+15New Google slogan: Google = Scientology = Evil
- Funkfried, on 05/02/2008, -1/+18I'm pretty sure Google is making ridiculous amounts of money off of this. And I used to honestly believe their "Don't be evil" motto.
- Rotzooi, on 05/02/2008, -2/+11***** GOOGLE
- zephyr42, on 05/02/2008, -2/+3woah... that was a shocker, did not see that one coming.
- tlui08, on 05/02/2008, -1/+12Digg harder!
- bumblefoot, on 05/02/2008, -2/+11youtubes been going down the ***** since google took it over and started letting the guys with all the cash take priority over the little guys who made the content that made youtube huge,although this is reprehensible action, letting the church of Scientology sponsor something thats meant to be open and a medium for free speech
- clamxbaker, on 05/02/2008, -1/+18It's not Youtube anymore, it's Scientologytube apparently. Tell Youtube know how you feel about this blatant double standard.
Scientology is going too be bad for their business, and image this can't continue. Lets separate this unholy union between Youtube and Scientology before it gets worse.
editor@youtube
suggestions@youtube
legal-support@google
copyright@youtube
estreich@youtube - Canada4Life, on 05/02/2008, -1/+10***** YouTube.
- FizzanoMatrix, on 05/02/2008, -5/+2Didn't they just recently mod to LinuxNerv? Doesn't make sense to re-eval the registry system..
- scy1192, on 05/02/2008, -13/+2aren't we tired of this Scientology ordeal yet?
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2008, -15/+4This whole public attack on scientology is stupid. Nothing makes a religion stronger than trying to extinguish it.
Remember when they tried feeding Christians to lions? Remember the crusades?- Bith8654, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4I have to disagree to a certain level. Back then getting information and the real story was much more difficult than it is in this internet-fueled age we live in. When attacks involve pointing out the flaws of the Co$ cult, I think it does more damage to the cult than help.
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Right- which is why Scientology is crumbling before us?
- Bith8654, on 05/03/2008, -1/+2Well I think we just aren't doing enough damage, which is why we are both being dug down by these cult members :P
- flossdaily, on 05/02/2008, -2/+2Right- which is why Scientology is crumbling before us?
- clamxbaker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5Bad analogy, you've got it all wrong. Scientologists have never have the support that Christians had during the Roman Empire. Christianity was free, Scientology has a catch, it's secretive, expensive, and hides behind their corporate wealth, copyright laws, and lawyers. Christians were persecuted by a suppressive government. Scientology is a suppressive cult persecuting it's critics, average citizens. The Roman Empire martyred Christians, the Co$ martyrs it's critics with harassment, litigation, and character assassination.
Scientology wants to hide it's secrets so we need to expose them. It is the "Church" of Scientology that wants to extinguish it's critics. You see what that's gotten them. Scientology is the Roman Empire, and Anonymous are the ones being persecuted.- Bith8654, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4I'll dig you up before the cultists digg you down! Well said!
- parrotnut, on 05/03/2008, -1/+4I`ll second that!
- Bith8654, on 05/02/2008, -2/+4I have to disagree to a certain level. Back then getting information and the real story was much more difficult than it is in this internet-fueled age we live in. When attacks involve pointing out the flaws of the Co$ cult, I think it does more damage to the cult than help.
- jjive, on 05/02/2008, -0/+3The spaghetti monster strikes again.
- Bing11, on 05/02/2008, -13/+5Article summary, minus spin:
Mark Bunker makes account. Breaks laws on that account. Account gets banned. He makes another account, openly admitting it's still him, and the first one was his too. That one gets banned too.
Someone makes account in Scientology name. Breaks Youtube ToS. Account gets banned. Scientology makes official account, denies relation to previously banned. The Register suspects connection, claims connection without evidence.
If there IS found to be a connection, then maybe there's a case. Until then, admittedly breaking copyright laws under another ID isn't the same as making an account which might be like a previous one which violated ToS.
Now bury me for being honest.- mikelieman, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5"Now bury me for being honest."
-Done.- gr000, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0You're not helping, mikelieman. Bing11's post is a completely inaccurate summary. You could have dinged him down for a good reason but just did it because you disagreed. You two are both the cancer that is killing digg.
- mikelieman, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2Actually, I dugg him up, and then posted the humorous comment.
- Bing11, on 06/17/2008, -1/+1Actually the cancer that's killing Digg are all the hypocritical bigots. The kind that find humor on 4chan, then preach about how we need change to be taken seriously.
You might want to consider where you stand before calling others out. - Bing11, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1Stalked and buried with no reply. No surprise. (Now watch the same here.)
- gr000, on 05/03/2008, -1/+0You're not helping, mikelieman. Bing11's post is a completely inaccurate summary. You could have dinged him down for a good reason but just did it because you disagreed. You two are both the cancer that is killing digg.
- fcrow, on 05/02/2008, -1/+8Here is your connection to the previous banned account in Scientologys name:
"In March, as reported by The New York Post, Scientology launched a YouTube channel in an attempt to discredit members of Anonymous, a live-wire internet group intent on making life difficult for Tom Cruise and crew. Dubbed the "Scientology Official Report on Anonymous Hate Crimes," the channel identified individual members of the group, describing them as "terrorists."
YouTube doesn't allow videos that broadcast personal information. And the account was soon destroyed.
In a conversation with The Post, ***a Church spokesperson confirmed the organization was behind the channel***. "We absolutely made the videos," they said. "We have researchers that have found these men. When you get death threats and bomb threats directly going after the church, we don't take it lightly."" - gr000, on 05/03/2008, -1/+9How about being buried for inaccurate? Your reading comprehension may be failing Bing11 - or perhaps the comment "The Church of Scientology has never had YouTube cancel an account, nor made any such request." throws you. Here's the thing: That DOESN'T mean that the Church of Scientology denies HAVING THE FIRST BANNED ACCOUNT, it means The Church of Scientology DENIES GETTING MARK BUNKER'S ACCOUNT CLOSED.
Here's what happened:
Mark Bunker makes account. Breaks ToS, without malice. Gets copyright notice from Viacom. Gets notice from Scientology. Tries to delete Steven Colbert video, but account was unusually quickly banned. He makes another account, openly admitting it's still him, and the first one was his too. That one gets banned too after someone (Scientology?) complains.
Scientology makes official account. Breaks Youtube ToS, with malice. Account gets banned. Scientology admits being behind the banned account. Scientology makes SECOND official account. The Register suspects connection, asks Church of Scientology representative, gets confirmation, also finds a second confirmation in a different source. Scientology denies complaining about Mark Bunker's account.
Again: SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT DENY THAT THEY HAD THE FIRST ACCOUNT. THEY ONLY DENY GETTING MARK BUNKER'S ACCOUNT CLOSED. (After bragging on-line that they were going to close it. Hmmm)- Bing11, on 05/03/2008, -9/+1Buying into the complete bias of the article, then repeating it here as if that helps, is pointless. The original article has blatant spin on it, which can be seen through by anyone who doesn't have their vision obstructed by a mask. That's why I made the original post; ignoring it and repeating the article's own spin doesn't do anything but show that some people still buy into this tin-foil *****.
- clamxbaker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+7Bing, you forgot to mention that you yourself are a Scientologist. Talk about being biased, no wonder you don't agree with the article.
What was the spin on the original article? Are you trying to say that someone that wasn't authorized by the Co$ when to the Anonymous raids took photos of anonymous members while they had their masks off, investigated them, then posted their IDs on Youtube, and accusing them of being terrorist, and bigots. This has fair game written all over it, this was a OSA operation sanctioned by the top brass. You've been hitting the E-meter a little too hard, anyone can see that. Some people will buy into anything, even a corporate cult started by a sci-fi writer you're proof of that.- gr000, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0He must also be saying that at least two or three scientology spokes persons are lying about this. Right?
- Bing11, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1clam (nice, unbiased name too, right?), glad to see the auto-bury Scientology-sympathizer movement in full effect -- esp. noticing you got exactly as many diggs as I did buries... interesting.
That said: you're making ***** up. I never said I was a Scientologist, and have, every time people claimed I was, denied it. Your bias is clear with your use of the "$" and the unfounded claims like that one mentioned. Prove I'm a Scientologist and not who I say, and then you'll need prove nothing else, as you'll have made it clear I'm a liar.
Until then, get a life and stop practicing bigotry as a hobby.
- gr000, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0Bing11 you either misunderstood the facts which the article is based, facts which are not in dispute, or you are lying. The Register article has a tone that is critical of YouTube in this matter - if there was nothing interesting there would be no story - but the facts are not in dispute here. So far. Though at the end it says Bunker said ""Scientology will say the first account wasn't theirs." Maybe Bing11 is part of that effort - I don't know?
- gr000, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0My comment is buried already? I guess those digg robots never sleep.
- clamxbaker, on 05/03/2008, -1/+7Bing, you forgot to mention that you yourself are a Scientologist. Talk about being biased, no wonder you don't agree with the article.
- Bing11, on 05/03/2008, -9/+1Buying into the complete bias of the article, then repeating it here as if that helps, is pointless. The original article has blatant spin on it, which can be seen through by anyone who doesn't have their vision obstructed by a mask. That's why I made the original post; ignoring it and repeating the article's own spin doesn't do anything but show that some people still buy into this tin-foil *****.
- mikelieman, on 05/02/2008, -3/+5"Now bury me for being honest."
- cobbwobbles, on 05/02/2008, -1/+5Write them, let them know how you feel.
- parrotnut, on 05/03/2008, -0/+1They don`t give a *****! It`s all about the almighty dollar! They could give a ***** less about freedom of speech and liberty!!!
- tr38zew, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5$ciTube 's what it is
- Anubis114, on 05/03/2008, -0/+5Cancel your accounts and channels now!
Vimeo is good
Adblocker plus (Firefox) will stop their ***** ads from coming up too- parrotnut, on 05/03/2008, -0/+2here`s even more reason to do so http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/youtube_sc ...
- tr38zew, on 05/03/2008, -1/+5$ciTube 's what it is now
- parrotnut, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/youtube_sc ...
check this out!
- parrotnut, on 05/03/2008, -0/+3http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/youtube_sc ...
- rogerdonaldson, on 05/03/2008, -0/+9325 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
- eibmozhsawniarb, on 05/03/2008, -0/+6370 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
- sadielcuentas, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4370 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
- theugly709, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3405 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
- iAmJohn, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3420 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
- c4keman, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0Who the Hell do these scifags think they are? Let's kick their collective ass and take down their organization this year! Anonymous can do in twelve months what entire countries can't accomplish through years of grappling with their own ***** legal systems!
- GalateaKusanagi, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0DIG Childeren DIGG!!!
- KipMitchell, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4Good lord. dugg.
Apparently Scientology monies > integrity. - qop1, on 05/08/2008, -0/+3454 Diggs -- and no front page!!! WTF?!?!?!?!
registerd for this one digg. - PL3NTY, on 07/10/2008, -0/+1Scientology owns Digg...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by