I will refer them to this thread when my article is published and see if they want to respond. Of course you are also more than welcome to do so.

and thats exactly the point Ive made from the very first post. Thats why I supported that PCSO’s comment of “time and a place” there can be no blanket rule and every situation has to be judged on its merits. Conversely one cannot tackle a topic if one is guilty of either using or facilitating that which they seek to highlight, like the vegetarian who eats meat. That was the other point.

Quote “instead of a crusade against these videos.”

So after an attempt to cheapen my view you now draw false implication. Look at my blog, look at the topics we cover, there is no crusade, infact I had to correct you when you claimed I had a beef with Danny and Charles. That was incorrect.

But you go one step further. You claim I am against Youtube. Where did I say that? I personally work of a basis of knowing my subject before commenting. The intellectual property issue of Youtube I was refering to was in respect of Copyright holders taking issue with users posting films/music without authority on Youtube.
One look at my blog shows Im not against youtube, I facilitate it enough.

Quote “Which makes me wonder, who was the person in the video that you spoke with”

Funnily enough it was only in the last few days that I recognised the person and spoke with them on the street. It was because one of the areas filmed I have friends there and I recognised them (another point that Danny and Charles don’t seem to consider, how that makes the person feel to have a complete stranger walk up and tell them they are on Youtube)

I won’t announce who that person was since they are embarassed enough to appear on Youtube in that context. Couldn’t Danny and Charlie at least make efforts to blur the faces of people they “feature” and give them a little privacy?

That point is not one for either me or you to labor and is a judgement call for the next vid.

For example, YouTube was at the forefront of bringing the Iranian governments abuse of it’s people during the elections to the world and you’re against that technology.

I’m sorry you feel offended when I said lighten up, but you should try it. Your time and energy could be put to positive use, instead of a crusade against these videos.

Which makes me wonder, who was the person in the video that you spoke with? What was the story there? I feel like your unshakable stance is due to this one person’s experience.

Are you Danny as featured on the Everything is OK vids?

and if so are you prepared to answer the points I make on my blog article about this whole subject?

I advocate freedom of speech, unlike the cheapening attempt you have made on my opinion, I engage in no such tactics. I would be very happy if you would put your views to my blog regardless of if you are Danny or not. I get over 750 unique reads per day (low average) so its certainly a reasonable opportunity to put an alternative view across (something which I defend strongly)

I look forward to speaking with you in the future.

Goblin
http://www.openbytes.wordpress.com

Quote “Just go take a look at the YouTube comments.”

As I say, its entertainment. The message is being put across at the expense of those featured and for a cheap laugh for the viewer. Are you sure everyone loves them?

Quote “onestly, stop with the Microsoft stuff. You’re fishing for things to complain about at this point. Lighten up.”

No Im not, for the purposes of this discussion MS is a moot point and it serves only to show that when one challenges a certain viewpoint one must also be clear of any guilt themselves. Im sorry you feel the need to cheapen my view in this way.

So its lighten up now? How about somone who promotes boycotting meat for a vegitarian lifestyle only to be a meat eater themselves.

You’ve failed to make a comment on the point I made about RIPR policy.
You’ve failed to make any sort of challenge when I told you that privacy of the comedian (as you exampled) falls under the remit of privacy.
You’ve also failed to challenge the fact that you yourself comment on privacy yet admit to using Google apps and have not made a comment on your very own privacy which I think you will find you have already signed away under the T&C of your own ISP.

Lighten up? Where does that fall under Danny and Charles brave new world of freedom of speech?

I remained polite, I am disapointed you felt the need to try to cheapen my view with lighten up.

And once again, I can’t understate this, you’re missing the point. Just go take a look at the YouTube comments. I think you’ll see that most people love these videos. There’s random hatred of Capitalism or Communism every so often in the comments, but the majority of them like these videos and the message in them.

Ok, so you feel like you’ve already heard the message. So what? These videos also serve as a reminder to other people. Just because you personally don’t like the videos, it doesn’t mean they don’t have a positive affect on other people.

Honestly, stop with the Microsoft stuff. You’re fishing for things to complain about at this point. Lighten up.

Not at all and I think you will find that in those cases permission is sought to use the material. Ive seen two cases in the last year where someones likeness was used without consent. Just as slander and libel laws don’t seem to be of concern to the “private citizen” in respect of reporting, I think you will find that the rules which protect the privacy cover an umbrella of topic.

I can provide stated cases if you require.

Quote “All the people they talk to seem ok with them talking to them”

We cannot assume that. In respect of one of their clips, Ive spoken to the person it concerned. They are not happy.

Quote “The clips where they refuse to stop filming, they have every right to do so.”

Of course they do. There is no legislation prohibiting the recording of footage (unless it is intrusive as in someones bedroom etc etc)
The instructions given to Charlie and Danny in regards to filming were wrong. Everyone knows that. Thats more an issue for the employee’s boss’s to consider rather than an exposure on the net of the people concerned in saying those thing. Exercise your right to complain of course.

Having said that, just like the person who has locked their keys in their car and is seen by police to try and open that car, theres a need for the question to be asked in the first place.

There could be a plethora of reasons why someone is filming publically, but let me ask you, if someone was filming a school playground would you be happy for them to remain unchallenged?

Quote “One of Danny & Charlie’s points are that it’s ok when companies and governments film as they please, but somehow it’s wrong when people do it.”

Again, THERE IS NO legislation preventing filming (unless obviously as stated above) please show me one case, where there has been a charge of “filming”

Who says its wrong when people film? Have you ever seen RIPR policy that government bodies have to follow in regards to covert filming? Theres no such issues for a member of public. I’d say the balance is in the favor of the public.

Quote “I understand your beef with them”

I have no beef with them whatsoever. The points they make are fair ones to be asked, I just think that their methods to far more damage to those questions since they are using the same “breaches of freedom” they claim to wish to highlight.

It would be like me telling people that there are alternatives to Microsoft whilst using Microsoft products. It would be double standards at best and at worst damaging to the message that I wanted to put out.

Like I say, if they are using MS products, they cannot make remarks about large corporations and underhanded practices/monopolies/anti-trust, since there are alternatives. If they want to comment on breaches of privacy and the “right to a private life” I would ask them to reconsider how they go about putting their messages across.

Kind regards
Goblin.

All the people they talk to seem ok with them talking to them. In the editing, you don’t see them asking for permission, but there are a few unedited clips where you do see that. The clips where they refuse to stop filming, they have every right to do so. Also, those public servants and hired security are approaching them, not the other way around.

One of Danny & Charlie’s points are that it’s ok when companies and governments film as they please, but somehow it’s wrong when people do it.

I understand your beef with them, but I think you’re criticism goes a little overboard. Unless you have an ulterior motive, I don’t understand why you’re as harsh as you are in your criticism and do not embrace the positive aspects of what they do.

Absolutely nothing at all, infact I encourage that ethos on my blog (in respect of software solutions). The problem is that whilst many people are discussing these issues, its Danny and Charlie exposing/publishing individuals on Youtube. Thats what I have the problem with. I could go further with saying that they are wasting tax payers money by distracting public servants with their messages, but then everyone has a right to talk to public servants since everyone pays for them.

Theres a difference between a patronizing politician though isn’t there. The public as a whole spends much of its time highlighting the flaws of politicians and if they believe them to be patronizing they don’t get a vote. Theres regulation of sorts with politicians and Its very different from the free for all forum which Danny and Charlie have. I couldn’t see Mr Mandleson filming members of public and sticking them on youtube. If Mr Mandelson makes a poor remark he, like any of politician is hammered by the press and public.

Quote “How about corporations during advertisements or public relations? They talk to us as if we’re 2 years old.”

And this is the point. We are already aware. Even in the IT world the “average user” is far more tech savvy than they were 10 years ago. Corporations/government bodies, infact a plethora of organizations patronize. We can discuss, we can highlight and thats great. But its the method which Danny and Charlie do it, that I have a problem with.

Quote “The kid and the cop happened to be there. The cop threatened to fine him if he continued to swear and that’s why they began debating with him on the topic. Nothing wrong with that.”

I am well aware of the incident. The question posed was, after he realized that there was children present, the point changed didnt it? If he had been threatened to be fined with nobody else present then there would have been room for debate. If we are agreed that vulgarity in front of minors is inappropriate, where is the room for further discussion? Please help me understand the reasoning behind that.

Quote “if you will, and ignoring the world’s problems. It’s about people being exposed to media fear mongering and problems around the world”

In my world we call that FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) and my question would be (as it always has been) whats their solution? If it wasn’t for large corporations their message would never be put out in the first place and if we are talking about underhanded practices and monopolies of corporations, I wonder if these two use Microsoft products? I would guess they do and if so its a little rich that they rely on the same types of firms they try to tackle. I can tackle Microsoft as I don’t use any of their products. I can tackle patent law issues and anti-trust because the companies alleged to be involved I don’t use their products. Can these two say the same as I notice that they’ve bought into the mobile phone consumerism “hypnosis”

Quote ” don’t you think your comments about YouTube and Microsoft are a little petty?”

On the grand scheme of things, maybe. For the people concerned no. As I say one of the points which Danny and Charlie do like to make is about our CCTV monitored country. Then they go and do something far worse themselves breaching an individuals privacy.

“Every website tracks IPs” – Sorry my fault, I was talking Intellectual property. I’m sorry that I didnt make that clear.

Quote “Personally, I would love to not use Microsoft products.”
But you are not tackling issues in the same way as Danny and Charlie are you? If those two are using products from a company that says itself “get people addicted” then really IMO they are really hypocrytical when tackling the subjects they do. I could go on about Microsoft, like the way its current CEO called Linux/FOSS a cancer…or Microsoft’s patent portfolio which IMO stiffles innovation and “software freedom”

If you have concerns about surviellance, I ask what are you doing using Google products? Ive been covering this recently…In addition, if people have fears of monitoring, its not the government people have to worry about its their own ISP’s. I covered this too recently. Check out the T&C of your ISP that you’ve signed up to. I think you will find you have already signed your rights to privacy away.

and I live in Bedfordshire.

Regards
Goblin

Just to play devil’s advocate, what’s wrong with more than one outlet reporting on the same topic?

Look, I get it. You disapprove of their methods. That’s cool. Your entitled to your opinion. I respectfully disagree.

There are far bigger fish to fry if you want to go by the criteria that you use to criticize Danny and Charlie. You want to talk about patronizing? How about politicians on a campaign? How about corporations during advertisements or public relations? They talk to us as if we’re 2 years old.

Ironically, you’d be on Danny and Charlie’s side if you were to apply your criteria to those “patronizing” the public on a far bigger scale than they do.

About the swearing incident, you’ve completely misunderstood what happened. The swearing was a reaction to him dropping his goldfish. That’s perfectly understandable. The kid and the cop happened to be there. The cop threatened to fine him if he continued to swear and that’s why they began debating with him on the topic. Nothing wrong with that.

The consumerism clip you watched is not actually about consumerism. I was referring to another clip that you haven’t watched yet, it seems. The clip you watched is about people being in a trance, if you will, and ignoring the world’s problems. It’s about people being exposed to media fear mongering and problems around the world, then simply heading off to work, going shopping, and not doing anything about it. At the same time, it’s criticizing the media for fear tactics that are used to control public opinion.

I have to say tho, don’t you think your comments about YouTube and Microsoft are a little petty? I mean seriously…lol

Personally, I would love to not use Microsoft products. I think they’re a horrible company, too invasive, and absolutely abuse people’s privacy. Not to mention their products are watered down with extra code used for surveillance and completely buggy.

I have no problem with Google or YouTube though. Every website tracks IPs and most use cookies. Google is actually one of my favorite corporations and they deserve a lot of credit for their many innovations provided to me and you free of charge. I can’t recall how many times I’ve used their search engine, maps, image searches, e-mail, etc

BTW, where are you from Golbin?

That was exactly the point I already made. People are already challenging these points, they do it on an experience basis (if it happens to them) I think everyone is well aware of rights, entitlements etc and thats why I made a comment about the message being patronizing. I am sure everyone here knows what should be challenged and what shouldn’t. I don’t think there are many people who think it appropriate to use adult language in front of children.

Quote ” They are re-framing certain issues so that people can think about them from a different perspective.”

and a topic thats brought up on almost every radio station every day. We are all well aware of the “PC gone mad opinion” we are well aware of civil liberties…people do not need these two wasting the time of public servants to remind us of this. The radio manages to put across the same message without sinking to the depths of exposing people on Youtube and as adults I am sure everyone else discusses these topics with each other at some point.

Quote “I don’t think it was done with the intention of having a child that was passing by hear the word “shit.” He dropped his goldfish and said “shit, shit, shit.” What’s the big deal? It’s not as if he sought out a child and started to teach him cuss words.”

That may be true, he may not have known a child was about. But he didn’t leave it there did he? He continued on down a path of challenging his freedom of speech. The tirade that followed merely suggested to me that indeed he saw nothing wrong with that particular action.
In respect of that clip, Im surprised he published it since the PCSO conducted themselves very well and made the most valid point of the clip “time and a place”

Quote “bring up specific issues with certain corporations, not consumerism as a whole.”

Really? The clip I saw was a saracastic attempt to make the point of shopping…..it said nothing about “certain corps” I wonder which corporations they would be, why he thinks they are a problem and what he suggests as an alternative. So then we look at the examples you have given:

Quote “For example, they bring up nutrition when talking about Burger King. ”

Fine but the microphone work thats on those clips was talking about “consuming” in general and “move on to your next shopping experience” The nutrition and fast food issues have already been covered (and still are on TV/press and in discussion between adults) we are all well aware. What “extra” does he hope to achieve with a megaphone?

Body image? and thats not covered by nearly every talk show at some point? I ask this, what extra (or better) message is he promoting about the issues of body image with a megaphone to a few people on the street? Do we not see TV show after TV show about this very subject.

Now before it gets put that all this info is on TV, those two are using exactly the same type of method to put their work forward, albeit by Youtube (which if they cared to investigate has had allegations in the past involving peoples details and IP) Infact I would go on to say that I would put money on them using Microsoft products in order to make their work. Again I wonder if they looked at cases such as Comes V Microsoft, or even the comment Bill Gates made when talking about China having so many pirated copies of Windows…let me remind them:

“as long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”

I see nothing mentioned of this.

I put it to the “everything is ok” that these vids merely serve to entertain people in a sort of trigger happy TV way. I suggest that there is nothing new learnt from any of the messages and instead they serve to give people a cheap laugh (often at the expense of the individual they use in their vids)

My opinion of their technique is that of sensationalism, except their message has already been discussed in a far more dignified way elsewhere (IMO) and at the end of the day its really not that sensationalist either.

I wonder if either Danny and Charlie would be prepared to comment on my points?

It sort of what comedians do. They take situations that we normally don’t spend too much time thinking about and they re-frame it and make us look at the scenario from a different angle. Simply taking the idea from the back of your mind and into your consciousness, it sparks thought and discussion, some of which may lead to action.

As far as the swearing goes, going by the description given of the incident, I don’t think it was done with the intention of having a child that was passing by hear the word “shit.” He dropped his goldfish and said “shit, shit, shit.” What’s the big deal? It’s not as if he sought out a child and started to teach him cuss words.

And consumerism would exist no matter what type of society or political system we live under. Simply put, people produce and consume. No one person can produce everything, so they produce an excess for others to consume and in exchange, are able to consume the excess produced by others. I don’t think these guys are anti-consumerism. They bring up specific issues with certain corporations, not consumerism as a whole.

For example, they bring up nutrition when talking about Burger King. They bring up body image when talking about H&M. That’s not anti-consumerism. Those are valid points.

But the point of having privacy and advocating it surely can’t take precedence over the message they put out. Breaching a “innocent” worker to millions in order to prove a point about privacy? Thats the problem I have.

Quote “There’s a certain aspect of it that is trying to liberate the minds of the viewer…. ”

I agree, that is their intention. However don’t people find that patronizing? I know my own mind and infact would go as far to say that unlike the chap who used vulgar language in front of a child, I would have the common sense NOT to have said that in the first place. It is not appropriate to use vulgarity or adult words in front of a child regardless of any “freedom of speech”. Like I believe the PCSO says “time and a place”.

To me these two gentlemen need to “open their minds” they need to balance their views and opinions with the consideration of others. I’m sorry but I enjoy consuming. I don’t enjoy working so much but its a means to an end and unless these two are suggesting nobody works and we all live some sort of carefree existance then there is no alternative.

To me its an immature belief that we can have any other society other than the type we have, unless we revert back a few thousands years where it was lawless and carefree….but even then there were “rules” otherwise humans would not have achieved what we have today. Simple stuff really, and a “bucking of the system” by everyone would not have resulted in the technological state we are now.

Quote “Their efforts seem like they’re meant to spur thought and discussion”

Well whilst these two are out on a crusade for…whatever…people are already doing this. Why do you think we’ve got an “explanation of rights” on a search form? Why do you think the MP’s expenses were published and then talked about at length on the radio.

People are challenging (when appropriate) and its not as a result of these two, its as a result of common sense.

Quote “It’s best for the people themselves to decide on the specific solutions.”

Completely agree and its makes me wonder what benefit these two have in challenging authority (at the taxpayer expense) and wasting their time, to make a point about something people are already doing (with far more decorum and no wastage of stretched, busy, PUBLIC services.

Nice speaking with you.