With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts
Screenshot Of First Church of Scientology YouTube Account – Now suspended
About ten days ago, Mark Bunker of XenuTV had his YouTube Xenutv1 account suspended because he violated the TOS agreement by creating another account after his first account had been banned for copyright infringement. The YouTube TOS was invoked and Mark’s account has been permanently suspended, which coincidentally happened the same day as he was to release the full Jason Beghe Scientology rant video.
Anonymous staged several protests attempts to get Mark’s account reinstated, but to no avail.
Today it was discovered that the newly launched “Scientology.org YouTube Channel” is technically in violation of YouTube’s TOS agreement based on the same rules which were applied to Mark Bunker’s account (and many other YouTubers). Here’s the rule from YouTube:
When a user has posting privileges temporarily disabled on one account, for the duration of the suspension that user is also prohibited from posting material to YouTube using any other account. Attempts to circumvent this rule may result in immediate termination without warning of all accounts.
A user whose account has been terminated is prohibited from accessing, possessing or creating any other YouTube accounts.
The Church of Scientology had an account created which they used to post video’s of named and identified members of the Anonymous, and to release negative propaganda about the group. You can read that here in the New York Post, where the Church admits to owning and creating the channel, as well as, creating those videos.
But now the church has counterattacked by posting YouTube videos under the title, “Anonymous Facts,” detailing the death threats from Anonymous and identifying its members, who are labeled “terrorists” although they look more like frat boys.
The main four-minute-long video, titled “Anonymous – Hate Crimes and Terrorism Directed at Scientology” – is described as the “Scientology Official Report on Anonymous Hate Crimes.”
It features a menacing voice-over that describes the group’s attacks in detail. “January 2008. A message from ‘Anonymous’ is sent to the Church of Scientology.”
The voice-over continues: “Their attacks start on Jan. 17th. They illegally bring down the Church of Scientology Public Information Web site. Jan. 18th. Two hundred and forty one harassing phone calls. Obscene faxes. Death threats. E-mail threats. Bomb threat. Envelopes containing an unknown white powder resembling anthrax are delivered to 24 churches.”
The narrator goes on and on, then names men they claim are members of the group.
“Any Anonymous member may be an accessory to these criminal acts. Many of their identities are known,” the videos say.
Ryan Benno from Valencia, Calif., is shown, as well as Jonathan Brown from Tarzana, Calif., who is making a goofy face in his photo, and Sean Carasov from Los Angeles. None of the men in the videos could be reached for comment.
A spokesperson for the Church of Scientology said, “We absolutely made the videos.”
“We have researchers that have found these men. When you get death threats and bomb threats directly going after the church, we don’t take it lightly.”
On a thread on Enturb, a member of Anonymous stated this:
The Church of Scientology had a previous account which was permanently banned due to ToS violations (posted videos targeting individuals and broadcasting their personal information [picture, name, location, alleged alias]).
According to Youtube’s strict rule set, the “Church” is not allowed to have a second account (”channel”). This rule was made clear by Youtube in the recent banning of Mark Bunker’s account (XenuTV1).
The new Scientology Channel, a paid channel (good to know where those fixed donations are going) is up and running and cheerfully spreading the CoS propaganda unfettered by bothersome rules about opening a new account after having your first one banned.
I can’t wait to hear YT back-peddling on this one.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
Nice catch, Anonymous! Anything else you want to throw at the cult before April shrieks to a close? I think it is officially the worst month ever for Scientology management and they are assigned a Condition of … Karmageddon: It’s like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it’s, like, a serious bummer (from the Washington Post Mensa Invitationsl).
Comment by Chip Gallo — April 30, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
One would think there’d be some sort of rule against posting images and names of people who have not given their express consent. Oh wait, we’re talking Co$. They don’t play by any rules. Silly me. They pervert any service that others are suddenly denied access to.
Comment by Joanie — April 30, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
[...] Gawker article: Co$ and video channel GlossLip With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts We just cut to the chase on this one. Hope I got all the info right. __________________ [...]
Pingback by Gawker article: Co$ and video channel - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — April 30, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
[...] Re: New violator! Notify Youtube! Story made it up on Glosslip. Woohoo GlossLip With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts [...]
Pingback by New violator! Notify Youtube! - Page 4 - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — April 30, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
Go to Wikipedia’s page about YouTube to edit this info on there! People need to know about YT’s unfair treatment of its customers!
Comment by Rick Astley — April 30, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
It was said on the thread at enturb, but there can only be two outcomes to fixing this problem, and Anonymous wins either way:
1. Mark gets his account reinstated
2. The $cientology account gets terminated
Comment by Delta — April 30, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
I had wondered about that one when their account first went live. I wasn’t sure if it was a whole seperate account though. This just confirms it. The cult will only follow the rule when it works to their advantage, and they break them when it doesn’t. I’m so happy Anonymous and all the other CO$ critics are so diligent. I eagerly await YouTubes response to this one.
Comment by AnonymousTaco — April 30, 2008 @ 3:27 pm
Good find D and good catch anons! Yes this will be interesting indeed. I wondered why there ads on You Tube disappeared. They just sent everything over to their channel. This is not just a foot bullet. They blew off a whole leg with that one.
Comment by Mitsu Too — April 30, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
[...] xenutv vs scientologytv GlossLip With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts anyone see this? __________________ The Real L. Ron Hubbard – The German Psych [...]
Pingback by xenutv vs scientologytv - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — April 30, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
[...] the Church of Scientology’s shiny new YouTube Channel, where they are getting special privileges which other users are not privy to (sort of like their special tax exempt status), is a video where [...]
Pingback by GlossLip » Phillipine Red Cross Distributing Church Of Scientology Propaganda Materials — April 30, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Obvious hypocrisy is obviously hypocritical.
Comment by Liberty Belle — April 30, 2008 @ 7:57 pm
Thank you for reporting this D.
According to Youtube’s Terms of Use, the Church of Scientology’s channel must be terminated due to their previous violations of the terms of use and community standards. Paying money to Youtube should not give you the right to flout the rules.
Youtube and the parent company Google should be wary of accepting money from the Cult of Scientology – money taken fraudulently from deceived parishioners, money that rightfully belongs to the thousands of Sea Org staff who work without just renumeration and no employee benefits, money tainted by appalling human rights abuses.
Once upon a time, Google had a simple motto – “Don’t be evil”
Comment by StopScientology'sAbuses — April 30, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
Ever tried to contact the fools at youtube? Standards? Since when does youtube have “standards”. They’re pathetic, going to wiki now.
Comment by Rachel — April 30, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
Congrats Y-Tube, you are now in the running for D-Bag of the Year!
Comment by Anon1376 — April 30, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
I’m again tempted to point out the obvious about this situation and why YouTube is doing what they are doing. Alas that the obvious is opaque and not transparent, either to the author or to those who comment. Tsk. But no, I’ve no obligation to point out the daylight. And since I don’t work for any organization, I can damn well say what I want to. Tsk. Right there before your very noses, but you don’t see it because you are locked into irresponsible thinking. Tsk.
Comment by Terryeo — May 1, 2008 @ 1:57 am
You know, Terryeo’s right.
If you simply examine the situation from all angles, you’ll clearly see that balls are touching.
Terryeo, I want to congratulate you for your courage in first leaving the church, and then finding the balls to speak out against it.
Comment by no nombre — May 1, 2008 @ 3:15 am
[...] vs AnonymousFacts GlossLip With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts Should we go ahead and help YouTube know about this problem? Or is this already being done? [...]
Pingback by XenuTV1 vs AnonymousFacts - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — May 1, 2008 @ 3:41 am
Tsk.
That’s a word used by people that are, generally, being shown a giant pile of crap that they unloaded onto your carpet that don’t know how to wriggle out of everyone staring at them, so they redirect the attention that’s focused on them back onto you by saying “Of COURSE I took a dump on your carpet, why wouldn’t I?”
If what you’re trying to reference is the fact that individual people are the owners of those accounts and, because of that, they can go ahead and use their names to put the Co$ behind the scenes and say “This isn’t a Co$ site, this is (Insert False Name Here)’s, so you can’t do anything, nyah”, you’re missing a big point. Your organization committed serious CRIMES by revealing the identities of several people and labeling them as criminals, thus the channel was taken down due to TOS-violations. As such, your ORGANIZATION should not have been given a second channel, and it should therefore be taken down.
Tsk, tsk. Looks like you got some stupid on you there, Terryeo. I’d love to hear a rebuttal to this, but seeing as there isn’t anything you can say or do to counter this, I expect there to be no response. Of course, since you are in league with the “Attack the Attackers” mentality of the Co$, I know that no response is not possible for you or any other OSA agent that is out there reading this. As to that, I have this to say:
Shouldn’t you be able to know a loss when you see one, no matter what Scientology is telling you? Shouldn’t there be little lights and bells and whistles that blaze outwardly, screaming “GIVE UP!” at you, exemplifying the fact that you have indeed lost and should walk away from the Roulette table before you lose your outfit to the wheel? The odds are against you, and it doesn’t matter that you think your OT powers are going to pull a Jedi Mind Trick to force the ball into the one little slot that would validate your argument, because hey, you put your chips on NOTHING. This is a blatant abuse of power, and once it’s been brought to the attention of the people who are watching that the rules disappear with enough money, this will have a significant effect on their cash flow (Nobody clicks on ads at a site where they don’t go to). If nobody is watching, your site doesn’t matter anymore, you won’t pay them, YouTube loses.
So this isn’t just a warning to you, Terryeo, this is directed firmly at YouTube. You hear this? If you’re going to violate your own rules and say “durrr, u r baned for duing this”, then turn around and say “hello scyentolige, hers 8999 websits hav fun”, people are going to start waking up and realizing that YouTube isn’t better than other similar services, it’s just more VISIBLE. What happens when a product starts showing signs of wrongful censorship? Something springs up in it’s place and takes over as the #1 product. YouTube censors people criticizing a DANGEROUS CULT? No problem, there’s always Vimeo, which is looking better than YouTube. Not just by a little bit, either. Smells like someone’s getting ready to take over if you can’t adapt, YouTube, and trust me, word WILL get out if you can’t get past your own shortsightedness.
Tsk, tsk. Seems like I went a bit long there. TL,DR; Terryeo pulls off more footbullet, YouTube needs to shape up or GTFO to make room for Vimeo, and crappy Co$ is crappy.
Comment by Anon — May 1, 2008 @ 6:23 am
Thanks for bringing this to people’s attention – the double standard is mind-bogglingly glaring.
Of course, everybody should email editor AT youtube.com about this (I just did), and let them know that the new scientology account is in violation of the TOS, and demand that it be taken down, as Mark Bunker’s account was taken down for the very same reason.
Comment by MightyTiny — May 1, 2008 @ 6:54 am
E-mail written, complaint made on the YouTube website.
NYCanonNYC
Comment by NYCanonNYC — May 1, 2008 @ 10:30 am
I fought for Both Magoo and Bunker, I also do not care if COS has a channel or not.
However, I do see a technicality here.
Bunker is suspended because viacom holds the infringement over his head, if they removed the complaint, Bunker could get back on.
Youtube holds the infringement of COS’ head and thus must have been reconciled.
Comment by bradS — May 1, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Talking about hypocrisy.
COS revealed the identities of Anon just as Anon has in the past for lulz against rival chans and others. One was even reported a miss by the news where an innocent man’s identity was posted by anon.
So its ok for Anon lulz against others but not the other way around? A double standard?
Comment by bradS — May 1, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
@BradS:
Say you work at a supermarket. Today another employee was caught stealing from the register and was arrested for the theft. Because you work at the supermarket, should you be arrested too, simply because of your employment there?
Similarly, certain members of Anonymous (pre-protest Anonymous, mind you) are guilty of revealing the identities of others. However, this does not mean EVERY member of Anonymous should be held responsible for the actions of a few, should it? The people identified in the videos were identified simply because of their involvement in the protests, nothing more and nothing less.
Comment by Delta — May 1, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
[...] Sincerely, Anonymous PS: Here is an article that describes the situation in more detail: GlossLip With Enough Money, You Can Circumvent YouTube’s TOS On Banned Accounts __________________ they call us newfags and moralfags… well… i’ve been an oldfag for longer [...]
Pingback by Scilon YouTube channel/PR push - Page 11 - Enturbulation.org Activism Forums — May 2, 2008 @ 2:27 am
@Delta
As for blame, here is my issue. I have dealt with anon well before COS and the original attack against COS from anon was typical, a freedom of intellectual property. I have had many the debate on that. So anon jumping on board was based on invalid and misunderstandings of fair use. That said, enturb anon vs the chans I find problems with many innocent anon that have no clue about anon, just that it is fun and has a cool mask. I have argued this since day 1. Most people will not take anon seriously in protesting COS, so I say to the entrubs, why affiliate with anon? Make your own group, one without a history or filled with lingo that the rest of the world will never understand. Thus this is why I assign blame.
Comment by bradS — May 2, 2008 @ 2:55 pm
@Delta
wrote: “the people identified in the videos were identified simply because of their involvement in the protests, nothing more and nothing less.”
do I really have to explain the lunacy of anon’s reasons for giving one’s identity. please.
Comment by bradS — May 2, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Actually, Brad, yes. Please explain why it’s lunacy to cover one’s face when dealing with a cult which is well known to harass its critics and hire PI’s to look into their lives. We’re all dying to hear this one.
FLUNK
Comment by Anonymous — May 2, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
funny scientology video tries to paint all with one brush, saying “members of anonymous” (an organization which doesn’t exist) could be liable as accomplices for acts of terror or something, WHEREAS the Church of Scientology as a single corporate entity evades the YT ToS. CoS is also claiming the corporate entity is being harrassed as a single individual in Boston, while MA law doesn’t recognize harrassment except against real human beings. They can’t have it both ways.
Comment by Hypatea — May 2, 2008 @ 6:10 pm
@Delta
You pose your statement as to say there is justification as to anon lulz in its dealings of revealing identities, so comparing an organization of which whether it is true or not, believes it has threats and responds to it is somehow less justification as to how anon reveals identities for lulz.
As for COS harassing its critics, yep I think they are childish esp the looping LA bigscreen, as for Bob and LMT, both were personal and Bob, Bunker and crew acted no different in chasing them down. In watching all those vids they fed off of each other. Kieth Henson is my fav though, you should give him a PI badge.
What I find ironic is that many critics of the past are still around and criticizing and yet no masks. COS could do no different than what it does now with or without masks to anon.
Comment by bradS — May 3, 2008 @ 5:53 am
The fact of the matter is that TERRYEO DOES WORK FOR THE OSA (cult of scientology Office of Special Affairs a.k.a. the dirty tricks office, previously known as the Guardians Office till busted by the FBI under Operation PC Freakout). Terryeo is an OSA apologist and shill. For more on “him” check out:
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Terryeo
Comment by Centurian 10 — May 3, 2008 @ 1:16 pm