Email reveals Clinton worked with Google CEOs to keep Benghazi video blocked
wikileaks.org
wikileaks.org
Apparently, yes.
My point, however, was a factual one: this particular email was a) voluntarily disclosed, and b) does not mention Clinton or substantiate the allegation in the headline, and c) also fails to show that anything untoward occurred here.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innocence_of_Muslims [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl2-NyONaL8
Some people definitely do go in with very strong principles, but those seem to dilute quickly.
A formal request would cite legal authority.
Interesting, btw, that you assume that Clinton did this directly, despite zero evidence. Seems just as possible to me that a staff member would have made the request.
If there is a threat to you for non-compliance of his request, then he has likely broken the law.
When an email comes from @state.gov with the description of "U.S. Department of State SUBJECT TO AGREEMENT ON SENSITIVE INFORMATION & REDACTIONS." I don't think it can be considered Hillary making a personal request.
Ironically this might have been a very appropriate use of Clinton mail.
I didn't claim Hillary made a personal request. I stated that an informal request was made, whether it be from Hillary herself or a staffer on her behalf. It is still an informal request that a private company can politely or impolitely decline.
And the fact that it was an informal request, not legal arm-twisting, and that they complied anyway just makes it more evident that there was some form of tit-for-tat expected.
I'm okay with that.
If the government had attacked a private individual's server, and taken it down, that's different in my mind. But YouTube does and should reserve the right to not host content, yes?
Perhaps the Terms of Service have changed (they probably have), but they currently include rules like:
Violent or graphic content - It's not okay to post violent or gory content that's primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. If posting graphic content in a news or documentary context, please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the video. Don't encourage others to commit specific acts of violence.
Hateful content - Our products are platforms for free expression. But we don't support content that promotes or condones violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity, or whose primary purpose is inciting hatred on the basis of these core characteristics. This can be a delicate balancing act, but if the primary purpose is to attack a protected group, the content crosses the line.
Perhaps in the heat of the moment (and with lives on the line), everyone made a bad decision. The video is actually currently available, so maybe they have changed their minds about some or all of this.
But yeah, I'm okay with this. I may change my mind when more evidence comes out.
But I guess if you have to pick between gross incompetence or lies and cover-ups, you can take your pick, or perhaps the truth is just, "yes".
With lives on the line, how certain would you need to be, in order to ASK Google to temporarily take it down?
10%? 5%?
And it's interesting to me to try to picture things from the other point of view... People think that Sec Clinton didn't believe the video was causing a problem, so she took a politically risky move and had the video taken down. If she didn't boast about taking the video down, then why would she do it? I guess people picture her like they Keystone Cops, or something. Or is there a rational way to explain this, that I'm just not seeing? Like: She arrogantly believed it would never come to light, so why the hell not ask to take it down, even though she believed it had 0 impact on the situation?
My only point is the choices are "dumb" and "dumber" so it's pretty depressing no matter what you choose to believe they were thinking at the time!
This incident depicts the US government asking for clandestine political cover from a multinational corporation, and receiving it. The State Department was the organ by which this unity of corporate and political power was achieved.
A candidate currently running for election was at least in part responsible for the underhanded censorship of information from the public.
These favors end up being repaid at some point, because that is how politics works. I doubt we will be informed about the nature of the favor that will be transacted from the US government to the credit of Google.
They actually dropped it: http://time.com/4060575/alphabet-google-dont-be-evil/
You can call this what it is: fascism.
Google is a for profit corporation, not a person. It has a fiducary responsibility to maximise profit and investor returns within all legal bounds. Nothing else matters in the long term, no matter how much you might wish it.
https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiducia...
"Sue just called back and theblockwill staythroughMonday"
I don't get why this would be considered evil or even underhanded. It's normal operating procedure for various government organizations to ask media outlets to postpone publication due to time sensitive events.
For example, say the NY Times is going to publish a piece on civilian causalities in Afghanistan by CIA operatives on the ground. The DOD might come in an ask for a couple of days to prepare deployed forces that there might be some sort of retaliation. This saves lives and isn't censorship--the piece is still published--but is a necessary interplay between media and government.
In this case, where early reports say that violence and riots are being spurned on by the availability of a video online and you have local assets there, why is it wrong to block for a couple of days?
I would argue that this is exactly what should have happened in the state department given the amount of knowledge they knew at the time.
This isn't a partition issue. I would expect that every administration since WWII would have made similar requests to media organizations.
It's a form of censorship, so it's both evil and underhanded. The government does this kind of stuff all the time, and it's really just a tactic to prevent ugly things from coming out whatsoever, though they claim it's temporary. Certain reports have been "requested" to be delayed for well over a year. This is standard procedure, but it's illiberal and undemocratic because it presumes the public doesn't deserve to know what is going on during the time period in which it is possible to change course. In criminal court, we call this tactic "distancing", because it allows tempers to cool off due to the temporal distance between the offense and the trial.
From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself-- but your perspective is not the only one. Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act in order to save lives? No, they view it as an empire protecting itself by covering up things it doesn't want seen.
I disagree. There are practical limits on speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a theater, defamation, inciting a riot etc. Asking for a few days until a situation starts to calm down? That's evil and underhanded? Do you consider the fact that they delayed announcing the Ferguson trial verdict censorship by the justice department?
You don't even have the full context of what was asked for and how.
> From your perspective, it's the US government looking out for itself
The US Government is looking out for the interests of the US and US citizens? Isn't that exactly what they are there for?
> Consider that people were willing to riot over this information that was blocked. Do you think that they consider the blocking to be a beneficent act ...
Do you remember this period of time at all? The people rioting over, for example, the Danish Mohammad cartoons demanded them to be taken down and destroyed. They viewed it is implicit US sanctioning of that material that it was available at all from The West. Of course they would have seen it as a positive step; it was what they demanded be done. What they would've disagreed with was that it was a temporary measure instead of permanent.
Really, the whole thing reads a bit like Ancient Aliens. I can't be the only one who reads it this way.
How will she scratch back Google once elected? What kind of favors will be exchanged??
Rather maddening as a Bernie supporter, but I guess that's the way the game gets played.