Continued: MAN THE HARPOONS!!! xenutv1 MEGATHREAD

Email this guy and, when you phone ask for him, Damien Estreich

Originally Posted by WileyCoyote

I've mentioned this in the main thread.

As angry as ANYONE here gets, DON'T MAKE YOUTUBE THE ENEMY.

Lets face it. YouTube is VERY inefficient and very easily manipulated via the complaint system. It's telling that a major exec there knew NOTHING of the situation. Nothing of a world-wide cause that's used HIS website as its backbone, and Mark's place as the most legal, law abiding, honest and rule following face of it. Nothing of the fact that news orgs as major as FOX NEWS and the Village Voice were putting eyeballs on a SPECIFIC story and a SPECIFIC video at a SPECIFIC time that got derailed by people with an agenda at a strategic time when it would serve to delay further media attention and blunt the effect of the mass public seeing the video.

In other words, don't feel scorn for YouTube. Feel sorry for them. Its not that they are clueless through malice, but by how large their structure really is, and how easily abused by the evil. Enough so that even REAL WORLD PRESS couldn't focus them on something.

They are not the enemy, they are victims here too. The good people in the press who posted links and embedded the Teaser video are victims as well, because they probably wound up looking like fools to their editors linking to a video that "went down".

Give YT positive reinforcement on this, not negative. KEEP the pure volume of emails to them up, but don't be asses. Be complimentary and calmly and logically explain the real world implications of this. Don't threaten. You might allude to talk about boycotts, but I'd advise against threating them. Simply express that you've heard rumblings but don't support punishing another victim--them. That will send the message that they have to worry about a boycott without putting them off of what YOU are writing to them.

Bump the video on Tory's channel by multiple views, ratings, and comments. That keep attention on this too.

Contact the press. But again. BE REASONABLE. Don't sound like conspiracy kooks. Lay out the facts, and DON'T imply that there's some vast conspiracy including YouTube. Make it clear to the press that you think they need to write a story about this, but that its pretty unlikely that YT has an active part in this. In other words, reinforce the notion that YT are a victim here too, as are the press themselves to an extent, of someone simply exploiting a weakness in the YT reporting system to shut down free speech.

Keep your heads screwed on. Anonymous may be legion, but they also need to seem (and BE) perfectly sane when talking to organizations like YouTube or the press.

With all due respect this isnt what gets companies to change their tune. Youtube is stubborn in its defense of its misapplied policy. Youtube is a repeat offender. Sure some people should be nice, some people should be positive, some people should say 'pretty please with ice cream on top'. Some people should also say 'you make money because I come to your site and view your ads, I dont have to view your ads. If i dont view your ads you wont make money. I disagree with you and I have the power to affect change.'

There really is no reason to play with kid gloves in regards to youtube. They are a business. They will make decisions within the framework of doing business. Positive reinforcement is not what we want to do. We most certainly dont want to say 'you guys are awesome for not cancelling the other 50 million accounts'.

It seems to me the only real justification for being 'nice' to youtube is that you are essentially a nice person. I dont really see any evidence to support this methodology as being more or less effective than other methods.

I would like to remind you to the old days when people watched tv and the internet was a dream. A television network has content or policy that its audience disagree with. Audience tells sponsors 'we will boycott your product for advertising on that network or television show'. Sponsors tell network 'hey, we are pulling our ads, you are dragging us down to'. Network makes a business decision to continue to make money and mend its ways. This is a strategy that has worked time and time again with huge networks like ABC, CBS, NBC. I dont know of any instances when these huge companies did something just because someone asked nicely. I do know that they have altered their course based on negative feedback and consumer action.

think about it from the executive viewpoint -
I dont have a duty to my shareholders to be a nice guy. I have a duty to make money. I have a legal fiduciary duty to be dynamic in the pursuit of profits. I have duty to fix problems that effect my profit. My decisions are framed in the context of my bottom line, not my morality. I respond to threats to my ability to generate revenue - I have a duty to do so. I have no duty to respond to appeals to my humanity.

Its not the way I like it either but I'm trying to be pragmatic, not an idealist. You dont have to be mean or irrational or illogical. I've already said that affecting profits affects change. I like youtube. I dont like the policy that allows this sort of unjustified and arbitrary suppression of content. I think its worth examining and using tried and true tactics.

The simple fact that co$ is a client of youtube raises serious questions about their interests in this matter. Presently co$ is a paying customer and we are just an audience. Youtube bets on the fact that we wont leave youtube just because of this. They are right, we wont. Lie to yourself all you want, you wont leave youtube and they know it. What they dont know is that we can watch their content without generating revenue. I think that might give them serious pause for thought.

Originally Posted by tiggernew

It's not so much anger as a complete lack of respect I'm feeling for Youtube.

It's still important to have them on our side I reckon. The comm's guy is getting calls by all national media outlets at the moment about this.

He could make a huge difference telling them to grow some balls and start reporting.

I know, I know, everybody seems convinced Google has caved in, but for now they're getting my benefit of the doubt. Well...just my 0.05 cents.

Originally Posted by foodforthought

It's still important to have them on our side I reckon. The comm's guy is getting calls by all national media outlets at the moment about this.

He could make a huge difference telling them to grow some balls and start reporting.

I know, I know, everybody seems convinced Google has caved in, but for now they're getting my benefit of the doubt. Well...just my 0.05 cents.

I really might understand if this was like the first, or second, or 20th time youtube has done this kind of stuff. I really might be more inclined to continue to give them the benefit of doubt if for instance they responded as to why they restored tory's account. I would like some explanations. I'm quickly losing any doubt that youtube/google are typical businesses - out to make a money and only give lip service to being good guys.

If I may make a suggestion, as a precaution anyone who doesn't have their personal videos backed up should. I do have copies of some videos I've watched, but I don't remember where I got them all so I haven't uploaded them. I truly hope his account is back up very soon.
Angl

Originally Posted by voxnihili

With all due respect this isnt what gets companies to change their tune. Youtube is stubborn in its defense of its misapplied policy. Youtube is a repeat offender. Sure some people should be nice, some people should be positive, some people should say 'pretty please with ice cream on top'. Some people should also say 'you make money because I come to your site and view your ads, I dont have to view your ads. If i dont view your ads you wont make money. I disagree with you and I have the power to affect change.'

There really is no reason to play with kid gloves in regards to youtube. They are a business. They will make decisions within the framework of doing business. Positive reinforcement is not what we want to do. We most certainly dont want to say 'you guys are awesome for not cancelling the other 50 million accounts'.

It seems to me the only real justification for being 'nice' to youtube is that you are essentially a nice person. I dont really see any evidence to support this methodology as being more or less effective than other methods.

I would like to remind you to the old days when people watched tv and the internet was a dream. A television network has content or policy that its audience disagree with. Audience tells sponsors 'we will boycott your product for advertising on that network or television show'. Sponsors tell network 'hey, we are pulling our ads, you are dragging us down to'. Network makes a business decision to continue to make money and mend its ways. This is a strategy that has worked time and time again with huge networks like ABC, CBS, NBC. I dont know of any instances when these huge companies did something just because someone asked nicely. I do know that they have altered their course based on negative feedback and consumer action.

think about it from the executive viewpoint -
I dont have a duty to my shareholders to be a nice guy. I have a duty to make money. I have a legal fiduciary duty to be dynamic in the pursuit of profits. I have duty to fix problems that effect my profit. My decisions are framed in the context of my bottom line, not my morality. I respond to threats to my ability to generate revenue - I have a duty to do so. I have no duty to respond to appeals to my humanity.

Its not the way I like it either but I'm trying to be pragmatic, not an idealist. You dont have to be mean or irrational or illogical. I've already said that affecting profits affects change. I like youtube. I dont like the policy that allows this sort of unjustified and arbitrary suppression of content. I think its worth examining and using tried and true tactics.

The simple fact that co$ is a client of youtube raises serious questions about their interests in this matter. Presently co$ is a paying customer and we are just an audience. Youtube bets on the fact that we wont leave youtube just because of this. They are right, we wont. Lie to yourself all you want, you wont leave youtube and they know it. What they dont know is that we can watch their content without generating revenue. I think that might give them serious pause for thought.

The problem is that this "money logic" is short-sighted.

It gets the video back, sure. It maybe even makes YT fear "us".

But what else does it do?

It makes us come off like "terrorists" who use pressure and threats to get our way.

It defuses the "media bomb" of Scientology using dirty tricks to take down its biggest public non-Anonymous enemy.

It's a quick fix that allows the story to be dropped, or spun the wrong way.

The only way that works is to pose YouTube as fellow victims. It means that even if they DON'T feel that way, they have to publicly posture like they do. We become the heroes, not the attack dogs.

Think. That's all I ask.

Think.


EDIT - I understand the logic that this is the "twentieth time" (or whatever the actual number is) that something like this has happened. But this is the IMPORTANT time, because this time media attention can be focused on it. And you want to send the right message--that we AREN'T a bunch of vindictive kooks in it for shits and giggles. We are (or at least we ought to be) deeply concerned citizens, who are about justice and fairness. And we won't come off as that if we lead with threats.

Originally Posted by voxnihili

The simple fact that co$ is a client of youtube raises serious questions about their interests in this matter. Presently co$ is a paying customer and we are just an audience. Youtube bets on the fact that we wont leave youtube just because of this. They are right, we wont. Lie to yourself all you want, you wont leave youtube and they know it. What they dont know is that we can watch their content without generating revenue. I think that might give them serious pause for thought.

The value of ads on Google/YouTube is only due to the number of eyeballs watching.

The eyeballs are watching content. Is that content Scientology's promotional videos? No.

That content has only been supplied to YouTube by its creators because it's a neutral carrier, with reasonably straightforward rules of what is allowable (subject to copyright laws).

Granted the whole Scientology thing is a tiny speck of the YouTube pie, but if they open that door to an advertiser, can they ever close it?

If they start censoring with arbitrary rules on behalf of some advertisers, the content creators will treat YouTube like damage to the Internet and route around them. The eyeballs will follow.

"Just an audience" is 20th century thinking. Ask Alta Vista about bets that people won't go elsewhere.

I saw a message just awhile ago regarding being able to watch the tubes without the ads... tell me more. I do not want to see cult ads while i'm on the tubes.

Originally Posted by Crackbaby G

I saw a message just awhile ago regarding being able to watch the tubes without the ads... tell me more. I do not want to see cult ads while i'm on the tubes.

AdBlocker for Firefox, for one.

Blocking ads for personal reasons is FINE. If you don't want Scientology ads in your face? Who's to argue that? I run Firefox and Ad Blocker Plus and have for years.

But using it as a THREAT to YouTube is another thing.

Again, the downside of threats is that while they may get you what you want in the short term, they tend to damage you in the long term. Especially when public image is involved. Scientology's biggest weapon against its opponents is the "web terrorist" angle. And while using your rights as you see fit to block ads, or not buy stuff, or whatever from your perspective seems to be perfectly justified, the real issue is how mass communications of such action can be "spun" by the other side.

What's a bit of short term "win" if you lose the war?

And again, there's the very real fact that while we HATE Bunker's account being down, the fact that it IS and why is useful in getting the press to pay attention to this story. Now I'm not saying, don't continue to lobby to get Bunker's account back. OF COURSE YOU SHOULD. But you HAVE to take the highest moral road possible, even to the extent of NOT threatening to exercise your right to punish Google and YouTube, because THE MEDIA IS WATCHING. Or at least they WILL BE if people do what they should and contact them.

Originally Posted by Skeptic1337

Vict,

I appreciate your work on this but teaser posts have a tendency to go over like a ton of bricks. Hint of news with a request not to read into it...is kinda self defeating.

Mark answered this with his 4th Blog update (aka the Fox thing). My intention was to let people know that there was progress, but really, things of this manner are not my story to tell.

From the WOG BLOG: Source here: THE WOG BLOG from XENU TV
UPDATE 4:

About the FOX News “Exclusive” — that was for the FOX News website, not the cable channel. I was going to let them have first crack at the video for all the good stuff Roger Friedman has written over the years. But it would also appear on YouTube and elsewhere after he ran his column.

Roger’s going to have something about this affair tomorrow and will show another 25 minutes of the raw interview on his column then.

Originally Posted by unidentified

Email this guy and, when you phone ask for him, Damien Estreich

Believe me, I talked to someone higher than this guy would report to. However, there is a stuck avenue at another company, so perhaps I will give this guy a ring as well. Story ever developing........ I'm awake now.

Originally Posted by VictoireFlamel

Mark answered this with his 4th Blog update (aka the Fox thing). My intention was to let people know that there was progress, but really, things of this manner are not my story to tell.

From the WOG BLOG: Source here: THE WOG BLOG from XENU TV
UPDATE 4:

About the FOX News “Exclusive” — that was for the FOX News website, not the cable channel. I was going to let them have first crack at the video for all the good stuff Roger Friedman has written over the years. But it would also appear on YouTube and elsewhere after he ran his column.

Roger’s going to have something about this affair tomorrow and will show another 25 minutes of the raw interview on his column then.

Woah... exclusive.
I'm glad that the video will still be propagated after the column runs. (like anyone could stop it LOL)

Good to know that the remainder of the video will be out soon.

Important to remember that if Mark does not get his channel back, he has many other options. He can post it on his web site. He can post it on Tory's channel.

Or both!

It is also important to note that ALL news about this is good for Anon and bad for the Cult. Esp with the eyes of the world on the Texas polygamy cult raid.

Dangerous Cult (the essence of what Jason says) is not a good meme these days.

All in all, this is an Epic Win and I am looking forward to massive Game Over protests in May, because with all this brouhaha, at least by then the media and many members of the general public will at least have a notion as to what all the fuss is about...

PS: I am in love with VF!