japanese cartoon porn…

More links that might have turned into articles if I had any spare time at all right now . . . Struggling? (intersection cameras fail to perform as expected . . . in the revenue generation department.) The economics of……

Technology and media rapidly changing right in front of us. I don’t have any hopes for improvement on YouTube’s sensorship policy though…Google isn’t doing great in that area. You can watch the videos on YouTube sensorship here and here.Moments……

This is a copy of her questions.

Actually, at one of the sites I went to, it had a FAQ about this person.
http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/

In it, the person said this was only their penname, they were American, not Japanese, and the reason they were intersted in the Middle East was because they were Jewish / their mother was Jewish.

None of this is meant as a rebutal to what you told me, just an interesting addition.

And for the troll hammer, yes I have read Nekama’s over at LGF. I have another one, supposedly written by a Japanese woman, in which she asks a lot of questions that have no answer – like If the people you mistakenly call Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs collected from all over — or thrown out of — the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, why did they never try to become independent until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War?

Search on “Yashiko Sagamori” to find it on the intarwebs. I would just paste it here, but you know those pesky copyright thingies …

Hope it helps.

But she is mad because 1)she says that her videos don’t violate any of their terms, yet they still get booted.

And 2)some of the jihad videos do seem to violate their terms, yet aren’t getting booted.

Now my second point is probably my weakest. Because we can argue back and forth how much the jihad videos are getting removed. After all, I just posted about how one of the ones I flagge got removed.

But I think my first point is stronger. Because Michelle Malkin was quoting the terms of YouTube in her video and saying that her videos didn’t violate those posted terms.

So I guess she is saying that YouTube is violating their own policy. Or being hypocritical. Something like that.

Yeah, if YouTube wants to say “We reserve the right to ban and allow whatever we want”, well they can do that. But I don’t think they did. They said “follow our terms, and everything is Kosher. But she did follow their terms, and got kicked off anyway.

My guess is that is what has her torqued.

But I’m not speaking for her. I’m just offering my own interpretation of what I think her thoughts are.

And afterthought. I’ve never been censored here and I don’t think I will be even now. I’ll learn otherwise in due course if I’m wrong.

But I do find it ironic that Hot Air, a great website, criticize’s YouTube on free speech principles.

They support our enemy seemingly. That’s a great reason to boycott them or to post more conservative videos or to do any of the other insightful and courageous things Michelle Malkin usually does.

I just don’t grasp her free speech rights over their website.

“CONSERVATIVE’S CRITICISM OF MICHELLE MALKIN”

You’re totally wrong and I support you [in response to Crusader 18's post].

YouTube is a private business. They can censor.

You ever read Hot Air’s terms of use? They are far more restrictive.

Michelle reserves the right to ban “offensive” or “false” comments and she and her staff choose every video allowed.

Who chooses what’s false? Why, her and her staff.

“We reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason. Rarely, if ever, will we do so simply because we disagree with you. We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws…”

She doesn’t just reserve the right to remove anything she deems false, misleading, or offensive, they “usually do so” in her words.

This is your jealous advocate of free speech on someone else’s website.

She has web space. Let her host these videos and compete that way.

Do I like YouTube’s political slant? No, I think they’re bastards.

But if Michelle Malkin was sincere, she’d follow her own advice, wouldn’t she?

Oh, and she’s still waiting self-righteously for YouTube to respond to her emails and two videos… when she wrote up a post attacking “Wild Bill” of Passionate America, did she respond to any of his emails?

Nope. She don’t play that fair play game.

I like Michelle and admire her believe it or not. But I don’t support dishonest hypocrisy just because of this.

Sweeeeeet. I’m not just some loser who spends too much time on the internet! I made a difference!
.
.
.
Well, I still spend too much time on the internet.

This video is “Banned on Youtube.com”. thanks blip.tv :)…

Keep up the good work. I’m joining the flagging patrol as well.

Thank you for your wisdom aand bravery and keep up the good work!

Best post I’ve seen tonight; thanks. I don’t know squat about the technology issues involved, but I can surely see that blowing this up into a cause celebre only helps YouTube in their effort to cash in to the dhimmi Google girls.

Why not stay away instead?

Today’s Vent on Hot Air was a continuation of Michelle Malkin’s expose on the seemingly inexplicable actions of YouTube in banning the videos made by Conservative YouTube users in response to pro-jihad videos, which remain available to this…