Quote:YouTube Says View Counter Stopped on Drudge-Linked Biden Video to Prevent ‘Artificial Inflation” of Count; Says It Will Update Later

(CNSNews.com) - YouTube says the view counter on a video clip that is linked to the highly popular Drudge Report has stopped--at the implausibly low number of 301--because YouTube is following its standard procedure for preventing "artificial inflation” of the video’s viewcount and ensuring that all viewers that are counted are actual people and not computer programs.

The Drudge-linked video is a clip of then-Sen. Joe Biden appearing on MSNBC’s “Hardball” and telling host Chris Matthews that he stands by his assertion that it would have been an impeachable offense for then-President George W. Bush to attack Iran without prior congressional authorization. Biden states in the clip that were Bush to attack Iran without congressional authorization he would “lead an effort to impeach him.”

The Drudge Report, which has millions of readers, had a link to the video at the very top of its page for awhile this morning. Later, the link to the clip was moved down to a spot in the Report’s left hand column. Nonetheless, the view counter on the YouTube page hosting the video was frozen implausibly at 301 hits.

When CNSNews.com asked YouTube about the frozen viewcount for this Drudge-linked video, YouTube answered by pointing to a statement on its website.

“YouTube employs proprietary technology to prevent the artificial inflation of a video’s viewcount by spam bots, malware and other means,” said the statement. “We validate views to ensure the accuracy of the viewcount of all videos beginning with the first view. This validation process becomes publicly visible when the viewcount reaches 300.”

“At this point, the viewcount may slow or temporarily freeze until we have time to verify that all further views are legitimate,” said the statement. “Rest assured that the views system is working as intended, and that the viewcount will update as soon as the system has verified the legitimacy of the views.”

Quote:Obama: ‘President Does Not Have Power Under Constitution to Unilaterally Authorize a Military Attack’

(CNSNews.com) - As a presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) emphatically stated that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to unilaterally authorize a military attack unless it is needed to stop an actual or imminent attack on the United States.

Obama made the assertion in a Dec. 20, 2007 interview with the Boston Globe when reporter Charlie Savage asked him under what circumstances the president would have the constitutional authority to bomb Iran without first seeking authorization from Congress.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama responded.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States,” Obama continued. “In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.”

Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.

In a followup question in its December 2007 interview, the Boston Globe asked Obama if the Constitution gave the president the power to disregard a congressional statute putting some type of limit on the way troops could be deployed. Here, too, Obama deferred to the constitutional authority of Congress.

“No, the President does not have that power,” Obama told the paper. “To date, several Congresses have imposed limitations on the number of US troops deployed in a given situation. As President, I will not assert a constitutional authority to deploy troops in a manner contrary to an express limit imposed by Congress and adopted into law.”

Erebus Wrote:So basically youtube acts the way it's suppose to act.

How's this news?

Mark Wrote:[video=youtube;KBb9wFP7uZM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBb9wFP7uZM[/video]

HAHAHAHA! I POSTED IT FIRST. SUCK IT, YOUTUBE, F'AGS!

Takebacker Wrote:17 thousand likes, but 300 views, all in one day?

@_@

Jon Wrote:Youtube always does that... How do these two articles relate, exactly?

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Just watch the video.
[video=youtube;Adpa5kYUhCA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Adpa5kYUhCA[/video]

Erebus Wrote:Should probably change your thread title then...

Anonymous Moose Wrote:The real importance isnt necessarly in what you tube did. Its in the content that the articles reference.

Quote:You Tube Froze View Count on Biden Video.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:I will, but only to reflect that it is past tense now.

Erebus Wrote:Well it's not really relevant... I mean if this is about political hypocrisy your title should reflect it. The way it is now makes this thread seems like a conspiracy theory.

Anonymous Moose Wrote:But the first article is about youtube, not exactly biden himself. The other article was simply added do to being related.
Although the reason I posted them was to show how we do have a hypocrite in office. Apparently illegal wars are bad if Bush is in office, but perfectly fine if it is Obama.

Erebus Wrote:So the title should reflect that and not the apparent "conspiracy theory of youtube bias".

Anonymous Moose Wrote:I'l admit that the orginal title suffered from poor word choice and did not properly reflect upon the original article, but I'm going to stick to the current one since I believe it the title should be based on the article itself and I believe the title now properly reflects the article and the fact that the event is now past tense.
For the second article, I mostly felt it was necessary to validate a claim at the end of the video in question in the article. So it would be a simple add on in my opinion.
My intent was obviously to show hypocrisy, but this is the current event's section, and the article is what reflects a current event.

Anyway, I think we should get back on topic.

street Wrote:Ok back on topic the view count is not accurate who cares. Its not like the video was taken down such a pointless thread.

Their is always hypocrites in office how is this new? Why is this new to you?

Anonymous Moose Wrote:Apparently, it did cause a great enough concern for people to investigate.

Second, the fact that it is common is not an excuse to permit illegal activity.

@Kalovale: Looks like I dont need to explain the strawman as you admit that you created it yourself.

@above: we can talk about the article if you'd like. Just most statements so far have basically been "this isnt news." There isnt much to discuss when that is all people say.