UKC

Hi i stumbled upon this on the internet,you tube is a pretty good site in general,but what cant be ignored it the amount of vile videos that are allowed to be uploaded and kept on the site i.e sex/violence/animal cruelty.After reading the full webpage what concerns me most is that young kids/youths who watch this stuff on there pcs and phones risk becoming desencetized to the images they see.its been proven in the past some of the most horrendous crimes have involved criminals having veiwed disturbing websites/videos.Maybe the owners of you tube being one of the more popular sites need to do a hell of a lot more to clean up its act.

In reply to blackcat:

I think on the censorship issue I would prefer the balance to be in favour of letting people watch horrible stuff so that stuff which I like and which might be considered counter-cultural or a bit iffy in terms of taste isn't banned.

Youtube contains lots of wonderful art and comedy and music, and a lot of it has rude words, close-to-the-bone humour, or other ways in which it could be considered 'bad taste' by someone with an unadventurous, sterile mind. In order to protect freedom, you have to set the bar fairly low/high in terms of what's considered offensive, i.e. it has to be disgusting in a way which is already illegal, rather than just a bit iffy.

I absolutely do not want to 'clean up' youtube. I want censorship to be at the minimum level to protect people from actual harm.

In reply to blackcat:

You sound like Mary Whitehouse. What do you think gives you the right to adjudicate on what people can or can't watch?

In reply to blackcat

I reckon to get a feel for how vile human beings can be you just need to read the comments under even the most innocuous of videos on YouTube.

In reply to blackcat:

I never knew it ever had any 'social responsibility'. Can you illuminate please?

In reply to Dave Perry:Pretty much all the comments i would agreed with till i read the webpage, and im not adjudicating on what people can and cant watch,you can watch anything you like.Im saying when it get in the hands of children and young teenagers.Theres a lot of vile videos on you tube that shouldnt be on there.

In reply to blackcat:

This is true, but if you remove them from there there's nothing to stop them being elsewhere on t'Internet.

There's no substitute for parental involvement in what kids do on the Web, though I recognise that is harder with smartphones than when it was just on the family PC.

Neil

In reply to Antigua:Theres a blast from the past wasnt she for banning soft porn magazines from the top shelf and all that,I am talking about videos of humams being decapitated,Violent sex acts,slaughter of animals watched by kids huge differance.

In reply to blackcat:

Maybe you can get the nanny state to intervene.

In reply to blackcat:

You're not alone Blackcat...I know many doctors and teachers who are worried about what is out there for kids to see. It is not a simple issue but the complacency of the 'no censorship' crowd I find disturbing.

In reply to Nigel Modern:

So find ways to prevent children watching unsuitable content.

In reply to blackcat:

Yup, the really funny thing about it was that (I think) Paul Raymond brought out a hardcore porn magazine called "Whitehouse" in her honour

Seriously, Yes there is some truly objectionable material out there but where do you draw the line... my granny would have banned and burned just about every magazine aimed at men i.e. lads mags, FHM etc. Does she get to draw the line or does a massively anti-censorship person. Who gets to arbitrate on what we do and don't see?

In reply to Nigel Modern:


It's about balance. I've never seen anything that's shocked me on youtube, doesn't strike me as being a dangerous place for kids to browse.

It's perfectly fair to be worried about what's out there on the web in general, but the OP is about youtube.

Are you concerned, like the OP, about youtube, if so, why? What kind of examples are you concerned about?

In reply to Antigua: Lol thats right now i remember whitehouse i think thats what realy peed her off.

In reply to Jon Stewart: That your opion jon people are shocked by different things,but when some numpty sticks his phone in your face of a beheading and laughs i personally dont like it and wouldnt want my children watching that ,we know it goes on but seriously who would want to watch that,jack the ripper.

In reply to blackcat:

I think the youtube policy on this stuff is really sensible:

https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

So the videos that you're talking about are presumably uploaded, flagged as inappropriate, then taken down. I don't think that for youtube to be what it is, it can work in a more sensible way.

A site where everything was reviewed before it went up would be very very different. It wouldn't be free for a start.

Thing is, if you want a change in policy, you have to think about how it might work. I don't see how it can be done in a better way than what's already in place.

In reply to blackcat:

Personally I think kids are molly coddled. Several times today on the radio I have heard people going on about things with the potential to disturb kids (meat in butchers shops being the latest) and I honestly think it worse to protect kids from the realities of life. You are right there are some horrible things on Youtube that I personally would not watch but if it is not illegal then put it up. I would much much rather have a kid discover something horrible in a safe environment where they could come to you for reassurance than to come across it at a later date. I have seen some bloody horrible things in my life, charred bodies, crushed animals, road accidents, as a kid I was scared by a horror comic! But I do not regret any of it because it helped make me stronger and able to deal with death and injury and able to work calmly in stressful situations.

In reply to blackcat:

So I can't upload my horse porn snuff films?

In reply to crayefish:


The point is that you can, but it will be taken down later. Better to share them peer to peer.

In reply to crayefish:

Are you saying its likely that burgers now contain sperm?

In reply to blackcat:


Which web page?


By saying something shouldn't be on there you are saying what shouldn't be watched. That's ok, we do it all the time but to deny that's what you want to see in the same paragraph in which you call for it seems odd!

jk

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Beheadings, women being stoned to death...

I have not seen beheadings but I believe they are there, I did stumble across a very graphic video of a woman being stoned. As I said, a complex issue however are we really resigned to having this sort of stuff generally available? I believe in freedom, I believe in non-repressive government but freedom comes with responsibility, otherwise ultimately it will be lost. I would be one of the last to vote for such a course but this sort of material is harmful to some who can go on to harm others. Once again a complex argument and people will call for 'proof' but I think we are hopelessly paralysed in seeking a better world if we believe we can or do only ever act on the basis of one certain kind of proof which may or not be present at a particular time when confronting a particular issue.

I think those profiting from the provision of images on the internet should take responsibility and apply some reasonable standards. I think otherwise the repressive crowd will win the argument. As someone else said there's quite a difference between a bit of porn and be headings and stoning. What will it be next...a video'd gang rape? It's sick and we should not allow sickness to advertise itself.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

An earnest parent once remonstrated with me when I came away from a market stall with a brace of mallard and their ickle heads were still poking out of my carrier bag.

As far as you tube goes, I have a wierd fascination with the comments. I know it will be crammed full of lackwits, yet still I read on.

In reply to toad:

Youtube comments really are like nothing else. It's interesting to wonder how they've ended up like they are.

jk

In reply to blackcat:
Youtube is not the only website and parents can't abdicate their responsibility to a corporation or a government because there is no technical fix that can't be bypassed by or learned from a tech-savvy youngster.

The technical fixes do nothing to address cyber-bullying or kids sharing inappropriate selfies, again parents need to discuss that.

Wiki is good for the Australian experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia

In reply to blackcat:


It is also a scientific fact that 99% of non-vegetarians who get cancer have also eaten bacon. Therefore, if you eat bacon, you will get cancer.

In reply to ByEek:


To be fair, if watching short clips of video has zero effect on influencing human behaviour, then the entire advertising industry should have gone out of business by now.

In reply to wilkie14c:


Actually you're safe... it's Trisha that contains all the sperm. RIP Trish!

In reply to blackcat:

I am surprised that you have only just found youtube - its a massive part of the WWW.

As other have said above, youtube does remove content that is deemed inappropriate. There are many other sites out there that don't though. I suggest you try having a look at liveleak or break.com to be truly shocked.

Liveleak is renowned for its gore content. On the other hand, If you are apauled by youtube, maybe give liveleak a miss.

In reply to off-duty:


True. But the thrust of the OPs argument was that because some kids watch this sort of stuff and become thugs and yobs, it should be banned. I don't have a problem with the banning, but the argument is flawed. Despite what the press would have us believe, the overwhelming majority of youngsters are decent, honest, model citizens regardless of whether they have viewed this sort of material.

In reply to jkarran:Hi just type in google,you tube abdicates social responsibility,click on the top one.I think the website says mjjjustice.

In reply to crayefish: Lol.,tell us more crayefish

In reply to off-duty:


equally all Grand theft auto players should be car thieves by now. You are quite right to say that what we see influences us to some degree but we also judge what we see within a wider social context. Children especially are quite capable of making value judgements. Where this fails it is down to wider social factors such as home life, peer interactions and medical factors.

In reply to blackcat:

Mjjustice, a justice for Michael Jackson pressure group? Sounds like the barrel had to be scraped to find someone who criticises YouTube policy and the whole thing reads like some naive tea party supporter's rant after a few too many vats of bourbon. I agree with Jon, the YouTube guidelines are sensible and they can't increase censorship without individual video verification, which would be detrimental to the site and do nothing to prevent children from accessing what you might consider graphic material. Even state controlled censorship is within a child's ability to bypass, so what's the point in picking on YouTube?

The internet undoubtedly makes parenting more difficult but I think the fantasy of internet censorship is more of a convenient comfort blanket for parents to avoid having to discuss what are admittedly difficult topics. Unfortunately the reality is that whatever parents don't teach their kids about, the internet will. So the only question is when a child sees graphic pornography is that the first time they've discovered that that exists, or do they already have some knowledge of the issues surrounding it? Rape culture, feminism, consent, what a healthy sex life actually looks like, the fact that graphic pornography is illegal in this country...etc. etc. What's more important, living the illusion that kids will never see someone being beheaded/stoned to death, or that if they do come across it they aren't naive as to the issues behind the less palatable things that happen in the world? 100's of years of parenting wisdom and you think someone would have cottoned on to how ineffective "no" is. A lot of kids seem pretty switched on to politics these days and are maybe capable of forming some of their own judgements on adult subjects sooner than they're given credit for.

In reply to Nigel Modern:


While it's certainly not desirable that a young kid should come across these videos, this has to be balanced with the benefits of being able to post them without censorship. You're making the assumption that the existence of the videos promotes these acts, but perhaps the most important point is the opposite: that the uncensored internet allows the world to know about brutality and authoritarian states can not suppress the information. This has to be a good thing.

How do you propose to continue to allow individuals to report from these scenes without allowing it to be 'public', i.e. kids can access it?


But is this possible? I think that what you're asking for is impossible. Youtube with a massive team of people reviewing every video on upload could not possibly be free or cheap. The nasty stuff is just the downside to an incredibly useful and enriching technology. I believe strongly that the pros outweigh the cons.


There is no slippery slope. Inappropriate material gets removed from youtube when it is reported and is against their policy.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's a good point. You could argue that the automatic response of people who 'stumble across' (and I wonder a bit about how people are doing this) these videos isn't going to be 'oh, I'd never thought of that, I think I might fancy a go', but 'what can I do to stop this happening?' (which isn't the same as 'what can I do to stop other people seeing this?')

In reply to Jon Stewart:

"There is no slippery slope. Inappropriate material gets removed from youtube when it is reported and is against their policy."

They can remove things if they want to but they certainly do not actively promote the reporting of inappropriate material...information on this process is pretty well buried, because they don't want to have to do it(?)

The prevailing culture puts the onus on those who are concerned about harm to prove their case but why should that be? Let those who say no harm is occurring prove their case. The fact is that we all agree some things shouldn't be there and agree with their removal. Someone needs to be aware of the stoning of women in some countries...that used to be what good journalism was all about. I fear nowadays much journalism is more likely to sensationalise and use such videos gratuitously.

We have become a society of voyeurs - we don't want to look but we do.