-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Thailand Bans Youtube
- Thread starter andylawcc
- Start date
miketheidiot
Lifer
I can see you going to any thread about banning something and saying that, probably because you're an old fashioned authoritarian. Either that or your in Off Topic mode. 😛
The Thai people love their royal family. That's what I've been told from many people who are of Thai decent or who have been there. I am sure there are those that may feel the opposite as with all things in life but the bulk from what I hear revere and love their royal family. Of course they are symbolic monarchy with very little to no power political hence why they had to ask the Thai government.
this is true. it may not be written law, but it's absolutely taboo to speak ill of the monarchy. and while the king is not really granted any powers by their constitution, he commands such respect that any politician would be committing political suicide not follow his wishes.
should thailand ban youtube? it might seem drastic to us, but from their perspective, it totally makes sense. i'm sure there are certain videos that youtube will not host because the subject matter is taboo in our country and would result in youtube being shut down in the US. it's pretty much the same thing... that video of the thai king has just crossed a threshold and the thai government has taken action.
Google is definitely in the wrong. When those who control the means by which information is distributed ~ especially someone like Google, when they adopt any position BUT "neutrality" is worrisome when they attempt to control content.
The problem is understandable though because the internet itself acts as a vector of raw communication, and unabridged freedom of speech in all its forms....and when many countries who DENY the basic principles of the internet to their own population employ the internet...its an issue because now you have a force that wants to stamp out free speech by trying to twist a tool which is supposed to be based on the principles of free information and free speech itself~
People compared him to mother teresa in terms of the respect he is given (without any power)....People who would do the same to photos of her would make many other understandably upset...but should it be banned and outright illegal? I think there is a compelling case to NOT engage in those acts out of respect for others, but in the end if they wanted to be arses about it they should have the right to be arses. Let pro King forces demonstrate and protest that to see if they can influence the opinions of others...but tossing people in jail seems too...wrong ;0
I think the biggest worry about the fracture of the internet is governmental attempts to control the content on the internet...
Btw - the discussion in dailytech on this article is ridiculous as apparently this entire affair is the Boogymen Muslim's problem~ because apparently the King just resigned the "entire country" to some extremists *rolls_eyes* Ah well, I guess people will always pick on a group when they fail to realize their own problems also contributes to a messy situation~ and this goes both ways...
The problem is understandable though because the internet itself acts as a vector of raw communication, and unabridged freedom of speech in all its forms....and when many countries who DENY the basic principles of the internet to their own population employ the internet...its an issue because now you have a force that wants to stamp out free speech by trying to twist a tool which is supposed to be based on the principles of free information and free speech itself~
People compared him to mother teresa in terms of the respect he is given (without any power)....People who would do the same to photos of her would make many other understandably upset...but should it be banned and outright illegal? I think there is a compelling case to NOT engage in those acts out of respect for others, but in the end if they wanted to be arses about it they should have the right to be arses. Let pro King forces demonstrate and protest that to see if they can influence the opinions of others...but tossing people in jail seems too...wrong ;0
I think the biggest worry about the fracture of the internet is governmental attempts to control the content on the internet...
Btw - the discussion in dailytech on this article is ridiculous as apparently this entire affair is the Boogymen Muslim's problem~ because apparently the King just resigned the "entire country" to some extremists *rolls_eyes* Ah well, I guess people will always pick on a group when they fail to realize their own problems also contributes to a messy situation~ and this goes both ways...
So as I read it had youtube merly agreed to remove the one video, out of respect and understanding for the thai culture. It would be a non issue.
Sometimes the right of freespeech to act like an ass at the expense of others does not seem like a very noble standard to defend to me??
I think society has to walk a fine line of not being overly sensative vs not respecting anything at all in the name of freespeech.
Realisticly though the line will not be identical in every culture.
Sometimes the right of freespeech to act like an ass at the expense of others does not seem like a very noble standard to defend to me??
I think society has to walk a fine line of not being overly sensative vs not respecting anything at all in the name of freespeech.
Realisticly though the line will not be identical in every culture.
Society has to understand that there are people at all levels of emotional development and evolution and all levels of opinion on this and that and that as long as somebody else is not harmed we should all have a right to express what we are. Every insult that is given in life that is returned will end in the death of humanity. Only a love that will die on the cross can save us from that. This poor sad king, if his ego is so great that he can be offended, is no king at all.
"No evil can come to a good man in this life or the next." A saying
no, it is not the ego of the king, it is the pride of the whole country.
The king represents his country, and his people look up to him. If the king cannot defend his reputation from a pesky graffiti, the rest of the country will be shamed.
yes, as propagandist as it sounds, it is for the common good of the Thai people. The last thing they want to hear from a foreigner is, "Hey, did you see your oh-so-honorable king getting his face all messed up?"
Coincidentally, my point is better illustrated in the movie "Anna and King" with Jodie Foster and Chow Yun Fat. The king has to behead the mistress who will soon become the King's concubine, even though she didn't commit adultery she is accused of. It was necessary just to prevent the slightest possibility of shame that might incurr during the scandal. I completely understand how unjust it is, but also understand necessary it is also.
i disagree that people have the right to be an arse. in any encounter between two parties, there is a fine line between expressing one's own opinions and and being tolerant of opposing views, but when one is trying to be an arse, he is intentionally crossing that line to cause discomfort to the other person. and i dont believe that is any person's right.
and just think how much better society would be if everyone took that principle to heart, instead of championing an 'i can do whatever the hell i want without regard for others' belief.
King Bhumibol is not criticisable in Thailand. He probably is popular because he's the single constant factor in Thailand's turbulent politics but I'm not sure. It's interesting to see how an extremely amateurish, 3 minute film snippet (I've seen it, it looked like it was made with MS Paint, slideshow-ish) hits the button of a Thai censor. Maybe the King really has a stabilising influence and should be protected from silly video clips but this is highly arguable. And it doesn't stop here, recently a Swiss person got 10 years prison for defacing three portraits of the king in Thailand. This is not tolerable at all (Link) and shows the mindset at work.
You do not understand it but you still deserve it.
I know it is the pride of the people, false pride in presenting a phony face that can brook no tarnish. They have build a castle on sand. Only those who secretly feel worthless present an image of pride. Pride is the external face of self contempt.
blackllotus
Golden Member
Why is it necessary in Thailand but not in any first world country? The United States, along wih Canada and most European countries, is proof that information and thought control is not necessary.
tomywishbone
Golden Member
They ban Youtube, but OK sex with kids. OK, carry on...
even though I may agree with your point, but there is little correlation between a country's form of goverment and it's prosperity. There were great kings in the past; and the British still respect their queen in this day and age. Japan too also has a king that yield no real political power but still command respect.
Main reason for Thailand's stagnant economy has more than just it's king. It involves issues that I don't know much about, other than it's notoriously corrupted bureaucracy.
See I thought about this for a while before posting.
I agree being an arse and having a "I'll do what I want" attitude doesn't get you far in this life because people will simply be turned off by you - thankfully most people are not like that and we are actually taught to be considerate.
BUT, this is ultimately an expression of an opinion. No one is hurt when this person acts "like an arse" - not one is forced to watch or tolerate this. This isn't a person running down the street of a town banging pots and pans "because he feels like it and its his right to do what he wants". If a person WANTS to watch this video on youtube, they have the RIGHT to watch it. If they don't want to watch it - then PROBLEM SOLVED THEY DON'T WATCH IT!
If this was forced on people then maybe I would take a different stance. But it isn't - and thus even though its pretty assy to mark a picture and then walk over it, people are not FORCED to watch this nor even "DEAL WITH IT". This is something that will not exist around people PASSIVELY no matter what, one has to ACTIVELY search for it.
Ultimately I thought of it this way:
Should I have the right to say , "To Muslims the Quran is a very sacred document...and prophet Jesus, Mohammed and Moses are extremely repsected. Should people have a right to spout a lot of lies and B.S.?" This topic itself has come up on AT many a time - and the real answer is that it maybe insensitive, wrong, and just plain retarded to try to offend others...but ultimately these people have a right to express what they want. And when I see stuff like "Sweet Savior Chocolate" I'm offended and think its retarded...but the key is that I have to actively go for that stuff and hunt it down. Its not in my face all day whether I want to deal with it or not.
Maybe Thailand has figured out what happens to their young daughters on Youtube, exploited for all the world to see.
My son did a few searches and came up with some pretty convincing material, much of it leaning in favor of an entire country banning Youtube. :shocked:
My son did a few searches and came up with some pretty convincing material, much of it leaning in favor of an entire country banning Youtube. :shocked:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
