Brazilian ISPs Told To Block YouTube Until Google Shuts It Down

from the proxy-servers,-anyone? dept

Following the Brazilian court order last week demanding Google shut down YouTube because of a racy video involving a well-known model having sex on the beach, a Brazilian ISP has stepped up to block all access to YouTube. The judge's order did note that ISPs should block the site until Google either takes it down or can guarantee that the video in question will no longer be available -- but so far it appears that only this one ISP has complied. This whole thing seems particularly pointless. All of the legal wrangling over the video has only made it much more popular around the world -- and there are plenty of other sites showing it, and for every site that the Brazilian government decides to shut down or that a Brazilian ISP tries to block, plenty of others will show up. Trying to ban it completely only gives it that much more attention and guarantees that many more people will see it. In the meantime, all the customers of this particular ISP (Brasil Telecom) will get pissed off that their ISP is blocking all of the perfectly legitimate videos on YouTube on the chance that someone might upload yet another copy of the sex video (which YouTube has quickly been removing every time it's been added). This ruling doesn't protect anyone, guarantees more people will see the video and annoys plenty of legitimate users. It's hard to see how that makes any sense for anyone.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    misanthropic humanist, 9 Jan 2007 @ 12:27am

    all publicity

    Good one Dorpus, a well made point.

    "When mobs of netters decide they don't like someone, they tear him/her to shreds -- posting pictures of them online, their telephone numbers, employers, bank account numbers, medical records, lists of acquaintances."

    The "Western" approach to this which you can hear a thousand times a day on Slashdot is "If you've got nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear". They aren't torn to shreds as you put it, so much as they tear themselves to shreds in some kind of guilty fit of shame.

    "When posted anonymously, it becomes impossible to track down the offenders. Drive-by stalkers constantly take pictures of them, and some victims have been driven to suicide."

    But you can't assert both, it's symmetrical. If A can expose B then B can expose A. If that is not the case then you are describing a power abuse, not a social phenomenon. The American mind is much more "fuck you", to it's enormous credit such actions are far more likely to result in homocide than suicide and through that MAD enshrined in 2nd amendment thinking oddly enough, symmetrical respect, that order is maintained.

    Would you, given the means and opportunity, post the intimate details of a stranger on the net? I would not. And not because I fear the law of libel . Foremost I would not do it because I think it is unethical and I hold myself to high moral standards, but second on that list is the fact that I would spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder for what is rightfully and justifiably coming to me, probably 10 weeks of hospital food.

    "Americans say that "information wants to be free" -- but do we really want our personal information given away to vultures?"

    It's not a case of "wanting" to be free. That personification usually alludes to the wishes of the person making the statement as in "I want that information to be free". Rather it is that information tends towards freedom, in an entropic fashion the genie cannot be returned to the bottle.

    However, this case involves celebrities who actively seek publicity. If it were a video of J Random Doe and his partner nobody would give a flying fuck (hmm, I'm still having trouble getting that second life video out of my brain).

    Lastly, the vultures are already feeding. But they are not the hysterical masses. They are there every time you visit the supermarket and pay by credit card, they are lurking behind the guise of "security" companies. If you think that information harvested under the auspices of legality is contained you are very naive. The limiting condition is simply this; the lives of most people, even the greatest freaks, are increadibly boring and dull.

    Do I care that Mrs Miggins of Arcacia Avenue, Fulchester is into S&M with her husband? Sorry, no, I have a life of my own to get on with however shallow it may be.

    As for this video, it only amused me because I thought that little twunt Ronaldo was in it (still grieving from the world cup here), but I couldn't give a monkeys anus what his ex bird is up to, who is she again? Oh that's right - some nonentity that wants to get famous by having a video of her posted on the internet and having her daddy presure the government to remove it. It's just a publicity stunt like that other silly bint Paris Hilton.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.