I am often confronted with filthy pornographic tags and offensive
pornographic clips which are now amassing at an alarming rate. And,
it is so far reaching and rapidly expanding that it cannot possibly be
flagged by one person. There are children scouring YouTube every day
who are being exposed to disgusting images of porn, violence, animal
cruelty, deeply offensive rap etc. Surely, YouTube have the means to
put in place a dedicated team who can police the site on a daily
basis? Am I alone in this or does anyone else feel that YouTube is
not the right venue for hardcore viewing?
I would like to be able to do something effective to stop the spread
of this type of insidious and disturbing subject matter but there do
not appear to be any channels through which to communicate directly
with YouTube staff. There does not seem to be anything being done
about it which makes it a free for all. This is NOT a good idea when
impressionable young minds are amongst us.
On the contrary, there is a lot being done about it. Several people
whose inappropriate videos have been deleted and channels suspended in
the last few days have been complaining bitterly on these very forums.
I have to say, I personally haven't noticed any dramatic increase in
the amount of inappropriate videos on YouTube. But any "dedicated
team" policing the site would have to be huge and, therefore,
expensive. The current system of relying on the community to alert
YouTube staff to offensive videos is actually far more effective, and
most of the time, it works.
Yes, some stuff does slip through the net -- temporarily. But if
YouTube really were a free-for-all, you can pretty much guarantee
there'd be almost nothing but smut, violence and spam on the site.
Incidentally, while I have seen the occasional softporn video floating
around, I have yet to see any hardcore porn on YouTube.
It's worst now because of the profile pictures you can upload now
people are putting pornographic images there and spamming channels
that are often viewed by myself and probably many children or such and
it's not stopping.... what are they doing about this? sure the video's
are being taken care of but what about pictures? this is overly
concerning to me
> On the contrary, there is a lot being done about it. Several people
> whose inappropriate videos have been deleted and channels suspended in
> the last few days have been complaining bitterly on these very forums.
> I have to say, I personally haven't noticed any dramatic increase in
> the amount of inappropriate videos on YouTube. But any "dedicated
> team" policing the site would have to be huge and, therefore,
> expensive. The current system of relying on the community to alert
> YouTube staff to offensive videos is actually far more effective, and
> most of the time, it works.
> Yes, some stuff does slip through the net -- temporarily. But if
> YouTube really were a free-for-all, you can pretty much guarantee
> there'd be almost nothing but smut, violence and spam on the site.
> Incidentally, while I have seen the occasional softporn video floating
> around, I have yet to see any hardcore porn on YouTube.
Thank you for your reply, rewboss, but I must disagree that a great
deal is being done. Firstly, it would not take a "huge" team to find
the videos, a small team need only type in a few sexual, violent etc.
key words and the offending videos would appear. Naturally, the
public would still need to report videos that contravene the policies
but, to my mind, there should be nothing at all to do with sex or
gratuitous violence, cruelty etc. on YouTube. Children ARE accessing
these things and would not otherwise be exposed to them if YouTube
insisted that it be kept clean. I realise that YouTube discourage
children younger than 13 to use the site but the fact is, 13 is still
very young and an impressionable age. One can only imagine what a
steady diet of violence, porn (soft or hard), hate messages in rap
music etc. does to children's values.
As an adult, I do not enjoy surfing through YouTube and being exposed
to a torrent of revolting images. For instance, I enjoy the family
show "Wife Swap" and occasionally search for episodes of it. What
comes up is appalling. This is simply not good enough and FAR more
needs to be done to effectively remove it. Since joining YouTube I
have noticed a huge surge in gratuitous violence, sex and offensive
language and, in my opinion, the media bombardment on our societies
from television to the internet is exceedingly unhealthy for both
adults and children. May I also mention that some of YouTube sponsors
are mongers of these low brow forms of entertainment which says a
great deal about their commitment to keeping the site safe and clean.
Again, my question is, what can be done? I can ignore these videos
but children and vulnerable people may not.
> On the contrary, there is a lot being done about it. Several people
> whose inappropriate videos have been deleted and channels suspended in
> the last few days have been complaining bitterly on these very forums.
> I have to say, I personally haven't noticed any dramatic increase in
> the amount of inappropriate videos on YouTube. But any "dedicated
> team" policing the site would have to be huge and, therefore,
> expensive. The current system of relying on the community to alert
> YouTube staff to offensive videos is actually far more effective, and
> most of the time, it works.
> Yes, some stuff does slip through the net -- temporarily. But if
> YouTube really were a free-for-all, you can pretty much guarantee
> there'd be almost nothing but smut, violence and spam on the site.
> Incidentally, while I have seen the occasional softporn video floating
> around, I have yet to see any hardcore porn on YouTube.
> Thank you for your reply, rewboss, but I must disagree that a great
> deal is being done. Firstly, it would not take a "huge" team to find
> the videos, a small team need only type in a few sexual, violent etc.
> key words and the offending videos would appear.
In theory, yes, but people uploading this stuff would get wise to this
pretty quickly, and rewrite their descriptions.
> Again, my question is, what can be done? I can ignore these videos
> but children and vulnerable people may not.
Keep flagging offensive videos. If you think it's bad now, I can
guarantee you 100% that without the flagging system, the problem would
be 1,000 times worse. What you're seeing is just the stuff that slips
through the net; the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. And flagging
does work: I flagged a video myself yesterday, and it was gone within
the hour. That's fast work, but of course not instant -- I have no way
of knowing just how many search results that thumbnail popped up in
during that time, and how many people in that time wondered why
YouTube allows this stuff.
Incidentally, the problem is not really with YouTube, but the entire
internet. In addition to YouTube's own "13-and-over-only" policy,
experts on child safety regularly advise people never to let minors
surf the internet unsupervised. There are thousands of porn sites out
there, many a small typo away from well-known and inoffenseive sites,
and worse: viruses, religious cults, pedophiles in chat rooms... The
internet is a brutal jungle, and a very dangerous one.
One way to reduce the chances of something nasty turning up on YouTube
is to use the "Only view partner videos" filter. When a Partner
submits a video for monetization, it has to be vetted first by
YouTube, so you can be sure that Partner videos do comply with
YouTube's community guidelines. Unfortunately, of course, there is a
downside: A lot of very talented YouTubers are not partners. It also
means that "Wife Swap" clips will be filtered out, because uploading
them without permission is copyright infringement.
That's not to say that you completely miss out, because some
broadcasters upload their own material. For example, BBCWorldwide has
clips from shows like Red Dwarf, Top Gear, Life On Mars, nature
documentaries, etc; SesameStreet has some classic clips from that show
(and, as I've been discovering, it's a lot funnier and smarter than
you think -- check out the Boston T Party, for example).
And then there is a huge amount of original content being made by
amateurs and professionals alike, stuff you won't find anywhere else,
ranging from general silliness to political and philosophical debate.
What I'm trying to say is this: Despite the nasty stuff that slips
through, there's a huge amount of good stuff. It seems to me that the
best way to use YouTube is not to put a few words in the search box
and see what pops up, or even go on the lookout for clips of your
favourite shows, but to find channels that you like and subscribe to
them. Start off with the "partners only" filter, take a while to
browse through various categories, watch a few videos; if you like
what you see, subscribe to that channel. If you also subscribe to
their favourites -- or just check out their profile page from time to
time -- you can see what they like; and if you like them, there's a
good chance you'll like what they like.
Thank you for a very interesting and informative response, rewboss.
And, thank you, too, for the your uplifting and positive points about
YouTube which, I agree, is a veritable font of wonderful and exciting
videos (and people).
From what I can gather, you are saying, though, that the only thing
that can be done is for concerned members to flag inappropriate
content. Whilst I agree with you, I feel that the next step that
YouTube implement which is to offer an indemnity before one can access
the more disturbing images on the site, is far from good enough. And,
I feel that keyword spamming could be kept to a minimum with changes
to the filters in the programming. The other issue, as I mentioned
previously, is the kind of sponsors that YouTube endorse. Some are
simply sleaze merchants and totally the wrong vendors for a family
friendly site.
Let's face it, YouTube could be doing a whole lot more. The problem
is, how does a community of like-minded members make a lasting
impression on the YouTube hierarchy regarding a further commitment to
cleaning it up? I could silently meld into the background and follow
my own merry path but I am extremely concerned about what younger
viewers are watching. Parents are not often watching their children's
internet habits and would be disinterested in placing restrictions on
what they can watch. It is up to the community then, to keep these
youngsters from watching things they are not ready to deal with. If
we do not, then the next generation will be further up the creek than
this one.
> > Thank you for your reply, rewboss, but I must disagree that a great
> > deal is being done. Firstly, it would not take a "huge" team to find
> > the videos, a small team need only type in a few sexual, violent etc.
> > key words and the offending videos would appear.
> In theory, yes, but people uploading this stuff would get wise to this
> pretty quickly, and rewrite their descriptions.
> > Again, my question is, what can be done? I can ignore these videos
> > but children and vulnerable people may not.
> Keep flagging offensive videos. If you think it's bad now, I can
> guarantee you 100% that without the flagging system, the problem would
> be 1,000 times worse. What you're seeing is just the stuff that slips
> through the net; the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. And flagging
> does work: I flagged a video myself yesterday, and it was gone within
> the hour. That's fast work, but of course not instant -- I have no way
> of knowing just how many search results that thumbnail popped up in
> during that time, and how many people in that time wondered why
> YouTube allows this stuff.
> Incidentally, the problem is not really with YouTube, but the entire
> internet. In addition to YouTube's own "13-and-over-only" policy,
> experts on child safety regularly advise people never to let minors
> surf the internet unsupervised. There are thousands of porn sites out
> there, many a small typo away from well-known and inoffenseive sites,
> and worse: viruses, religious cults, pedophiles in chat rooms... The
> internet is a brutal jungle, and a very dangerous one.
> One way to reduce the chances of something nasty turning up on YouTube
> is to use the "Only view partner videos" filter. When a Partner
> submits a video for monetization, it has to be vetted first by
> YouTube, so you can be sure that Partner videos do comply with
> YouTube's community guidelines. Unfortunately, of course, there is a
> downside: A lot of very talented YouTubers are not partners. It also
> means that "Wife Swap" clips will be filtered out, because uploading
> them without permission is copyright infringement.
> That's not to say that you completely miss out, because some
> broadcasters upload their own material. For example, BBCWorldwide has
> clips from shows like Red Dwarf, Top Gear, Life On Mars, nature
> documentaries, etc; SesameStreet has some classic clips from that show
> (and, as I've been discovering, it's a lot funnier and smarter than
> you think -- check out the Boston T Party, for example).
> And then there is a huge amount of original content being made by
> amateurs and professionals alike, stuff you won't find anywhere else,
> ranging from general silliness to political and philosophical debate.
> What I'm trying to say is this: Despite the nasty stuff that slips
> through, there's a huge amount of good stuff. It seems to me that the
> best way to use YouTube is not to put a few words in the search box
> and see what pops up, or even go on the lookout for clips of your
> favourite shows, but to find channels that you like and subscribe to
> them. Start off with the "partners only" filter, take a while to
> browse through various categories, watch a few videos; if you like
> what you see, subscribe to that channel. If you also subscribe to
> their favourites -- or just check out their profile page from time to
> time -- you can see what they like; and if you like them, there's a
> good chance you'll like what they like.
RedwoodTheElf - thank you for your suggestion however, I have a
thriving business of my own to attend to and do not have the time to
spent hours and hours doing a job that, quite frankly, YouTube should
be taking care of. The company is raking in billions of dollars and a
few million to implement protective measures via the IT department
would be neither here nor there for it. It would, however, make all
the difference to the community of minors who are being exposed to
adult content.
"Parents are not often watching their children's internet habits and
would be disinterested in placing restrictions on what they can
watch. It is up to the community then, to keep these
youngsters from watching things they are not ready to deal with."
Precisely why this community flagging system is a good idea. With a
thousands and thousands of viewers flagging inappropriate material it
is far more effective that YouTube hiring a few grunts to do it.
Parents not minding their children is a far greater problem. No
telling what their kids are getting into besides cruising around
YouTube. Any unsupervised kid could google (or yahoo) any number of
things and get far worse things than you'd find on YouTube.
I think Google/YouTube should do some research into limiting the
amount of inappropriate material that gets posted to YouTube, but I
think that it's a pretty big challenge that won't be overcome over
night.
> Thank you for a very interesting and informative response, rewboss.
> And, thank you, too, for the your uplifting and positive points about
> YouTube which, I agree, is a veritable font of wonderful and exciting
> videos (and people).
> From what I can gather, you are saying, though, that the only thing
> that can be done is for concerned members to flag inappropriate
> content. Whilst I agree with you, I feel that the next step that
> YouTube implement which is to offer an indemnity before one can access
> the more disturbing images on the site, is far from good enough. And,
> I feel that keyword spamming could be kept to a minimum with changes
> to the filters in the programming. The other issue, as I mentioned
> previously, is the kind of sponsors that YouTube endorse. Some are
> simply sleaze merchants and totally the wrong vendors for a family
> friendly site.
> Let's face it, YouTube could be doing a whole lot more. The problem
> is, how does a community of like-minded members make a lasting
> impression on the YouTube hierarchy regarding a further commitment to
> cleaning it up? I could silently meld into the background and follow
> my own merry path but I am extremely concerned about what younger
> viewers are watching. Parents are not often watching their children's
> internet habits and would be disinterested in placing restrictions on
> what they can watch. It is up to the community then, to keep these
> youngsters from watching things they are not ready to deal with. If
> we do not, then the next generation will be further up the creek than
> this one.
> On Sep 6, 8:18 pm, rewboss wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 2:12 am, Utopiang wrote:
> > > Thank you for your reply, rewboss, but I must disagree that a great
> > > deal is being done. Firstly, it would not take a "huge" team to find
> > > the videos, a small team need only type in a few sexual, violent etc.
> > > key words and the offending videos would appear.
> > In theory, yes, but people uploading this stuff would get wise to this
> > pretty quickly, and rewrite their descriptions.
> > > Again, my question is, what can be done? I can ignore these videos
> > > but children and vulnerable people may not.
> > Keep flagging offensive videos. If you think it's bad now, I can
> > guarantee you 100% that without the flagging system, the problem would
> > be 1,000 times worse. What you're seeing is just the stuff that slips
> > through the net; the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. And flagging
> > does work: I flagged a video myself yesterday, and it was gone within
> > the hour. That's fast work, but of course not instant -- I have no way
> > of knowing just how many search results that thumbnail popped up in
> > during that time, and how many people in that time wondered why
> > YouTube allows this stuff.
> > Incidentally, the problem is not really with YouTube, but the entire
> > internet. In addition to YouTube's own "13-and-over-only" policy,
> > experts on child safety regularly advise people never to let minors
> > surf the internet unsupervised. There are thousands of porn sites out
> > there, many a small typo away from well-known and inoffenseive sites,
> > and worse: viruses, religious cults, pedophiles in chat rooms... The
> > internet is a brutal jungle, and a very dangerous one.
> > One way to reduce the chances of something nasty turning up on YouTube
> > is to use the "Only view partner videos" filter. When a Partner
> > submits a video for monetization, it has to be vetted first by
> > YouTube, so you can be sure that Partner videos do comply with
> > YouTube's community guidelines. Unfortunately, of course, there is a
> > downside: A lot of very talented YouTubers are not partners. It also
> > means that "Wife Swap" clips will be filtered out, because uploading
> > them without permission is copyright infringement.
> > That's not to say that you completely miss out, because some
> > broadcasters upload their own material. For example, BBCWorldwide has
> > clips from shows like Red Dwarf, Top Gear, Life On Mars, nature
> > documentaries, etc; SesameStreet has some classic clips from that show
> > (and, as I've been discovering, it's a lot funnier and smarter than
> > you think -- check out the Boston T Party, for example).
> > And then there is a huge amount of original content being made by
> > amateurs and professionals alike, stuff you won't find anywhere else,
> > ranging from general silliness to political and philosophical debate.
> > What I'm trying to say is this: Despite the nasty stuff that slips
> > through, there's a huge amount of good stuff. It seems to me that the
> > best way to use YouTube is not to put a few words in the search box
> > and see what pops up, or even go on the lookout for clips of your
> > favourite shows, but to find channels that you like and subscribe to
> > them. Start off with the "partners only" filter, take a while to
> > browse through various categories, watch a few videos; if you like
> > what you see, subscribe to that channel. If you also subscribe to
> > their favourites -- or just check out their profile page from time to
> > time -- you can see what they like; and if you like them, there's a
> > good chance you'll like what they like.
It's actually a myth that YouTube is making billions of dollars. What
is true is that YouTube is owned by Google, which is insanely rich,
but YouTube is still run independently. Official figures haven't been
released, but Forbes recently projected YouTube's revenue (not
profit!) to reach about $200 million this year, while bandwidth costs
alone have been estimated at $1 million a day.
Keyword filtering is worse than useless. I've never seen a filter that
works reliably, but I have seen filters turn discussions of NBC's logo
into discussions of unintended profanity, effectively defeating their
whole purpose. They're also ridiculously easy to circumvent. The
current filters are bad enough, the URL filter in particular catching
out people who just want to comment with, "Awww, what a cute little
kitty", but doing nothing to prevent people posting "SEE MY WEBSITE AT
EXAMPLE DOT COM FOR ADULT FUN!"
And that's before you factor in all the other world's languages, and
YouTube is an international site with several localisations, and many
more likely in the works. This only increases the problem: for
example, "Pik Ass" is not a gay porn video featuring a former South
African foreign minister, but German for "ace of spades".
I appreciate what you are saying, rewboss, and understand where you
are coming from. I gather from your comments that you are well versed
in the machinations of the site and have your own frustrations with
the limited resources. I also see where the limitations arise with
filters.
The glaring problem, however, remains unsolved whilst nothing
worthwhile is being done to lay down firm policies that work on a very
large, very influential and very far reaching public venue. There are
far too many loopholes and allowances made which is irresponsibly glib
of Google, primarily, and also of those who independently run
YouTube. If innovative ideas can create giant computer networks and
elaborate programs, surely the creative minds behind them can protect,
to a greater extent, the intrinsic values that society depends on to
remain somewhat civilised?
As I mentioned previously, some of the sponsors are clearly in the
porn, violent video games etc. industries and are apparently very
welcome to place their link on the pages for all to see (and enter).
It strikes me as rather dangerous to introduce a massive worldwide
venue to a global population and then throw the onus on those with the
goodwill and good moral fibre to guide it. On a global stage, it
seems a bit naive to think that it will not be sullied considerably
over time by those who can profit from corrupting it.
Perhaps the issue lies with those with a vested interest - the
shareholders - who may be more interested in the dollars and cents to
concern themselves with such trivial matters as maintaining the
integrity of the site with wholesome entertainment.
> It's actually a myth that YouTube is making billions of dollars. What
> is true is that YouTube is owned by Google, which is insanely rich,
> but YouTube is still run independently. Official figures haven't been
> released, but Forbes recently projected YouTube's revenue (not
> profit!) to reach about $200 million this year, while bandwidth costs
> alone have been estimated at $1 million a day.
> Keyword filtering is worse than useless. I've never seen a filter that
> works reliably, but I have seen filters turn discussions of NBC's logo
> into discussions of unintended profanity, effectively defeating their
> whole purpose. They're also ridiculously easy to circumvent. The
> current filters are bad enough, the URL filter in particular catching
> out people who just want to comment with, "Awww, what a cute little
> kitty", but doing nothing to prevent people posting "SEE MY WEBSITE AT
> EXAMPLE DOT COM FOR ADULT FUN!"
> And that's before you factor in all the other world's languages, and
> YouTube is an international site with several localisations, and many
> more likely in the works. This only increases the problem: for
> example, "Pik Ass" is not a gay porn video featuring a former South
> African foreign minister, but German for "ace of spades".
Well, what you're asking for is a massive censorship campaign, and
once more we're back to the problem of resources and staffing levels;
it would also put in place a huge apparatus which could be misused to,
say, stifle political debate (who, after all, watches the watchers?).
I would take issue with your assertion that some of YouTube's sponsors
are in the "porn and violent video games" business, unless you have
some specific examples. It's true that what people consider to be
"porn" and even "violence" varies according to personal beliefs and
societal values, but YouTube's yardstick is "PG-13". A little bit of
computer-game-style violence is to be expected, and there's actually
no hard evidence that such games encourage real violence or damage the
nation's moral fibre. The same goes for glimpses of cleavage and the
occasional profanity.
But self-censorship is actually one of the features of the internet as
a whole. It's not so much throwing the onus onto those with "good
moral fibre" as getting the whole community involved and collectively
responsible. After all, YouTube provide this service for free, so the
least we can do is support YouTube while we all strive to find the
right balance between free speech and censorship.
The system works a lot better on Wikipedia, where a clear line can be
drawn (anything that doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia
is simply deleted), but with true user-generated content like YouTube,
lines are faintly drawn in drifting sands and are devilishly hard to
pin down. In particular, it's hard to define what is meant exactly by
"wholesome entertainment": your use of the phrase tells me there's a
good chance that you and I would disagree on what is acceptable.
YouTube, though, doesn't directly go by what you or I think, but
loosely by what the MPAA recommends.
rewboss, it sounds to me as though you believe that the sight of a
little cleavage, an uncovered ankle or a mild swear word would send me
into a frenzy of protest. This is not the case at all, I can assure
you. And, the idea that 'acceptable' violence of any kind does not
harm a child's mind is simply naive. The children who are engaged in
violent games may not become gun toting madmen but, like a poor diet,
it can affect their moods and, if enough is ingested, their
sensitivity to violence. I am of the mind that watching a steady
stream of violence on television night after night topped with a
liberal helping of doom and gloom on the news and finished with a dose
of lascivious viewing is too excessive for the human mind.
With regards to the sponsors, I came upon a few of their low brow ads
the other day when I unsuspectingly happened upon a string of sexual
videos after typing in an innocuous keyword and whilst I cannot
remember which category they were under, it was selling a service
where one could enjoy affairs or flings with married women. Great
stuff.
I would like to assure you that I am not a squawking fish wife with a
penchant for bible thumping who is mortified by the slightest
titillation. The things I take offense to are things like this little
number for instance (a title on a YouTube video): "PORN anal sex oral
ass tit fuck get fucked cunt dick pussy porno fucking naked ..." or
video games which encourage youngsters to blow the heads off people
and then watch them collapse in a viscous mess. All the while being
lauded as a hero for being a villain. This is not simply a bit of
fun, it is dangerous. I would encourage you to type in the words
"violent video games" and have a look at the things that children can
access on YouTube. It is by no means "a little bit of violence".
Depression is a very real issue with children today and adding fuel to
the fire is reprehensible. The sponsors in this category, for
instance, are titled "Classic Rough Extreme Brutal Shock in 70s Adult
Flicks Ravished Beauty Forced Seduction www.bizarrovideo.com - not
exactly "wholesome entertainment". Or maybe you disagree.
The wedge will keep getting thicker and more and more children will be
exposed to more and more degradation earlier. A spate of reports
recently surfaced about children as young as 8 sitting through "The
Dark Knight" with their parents. There is no way that that does not
alter a child's sense of the world and their security in it. Children
are not little adults, they are impressionable and very emotionally
green... they will be changed irrevocably by our lax stuardship if we
are not more careful with them and that will not bode well for future
parenting.
English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for
the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
> Well, what you're asking for is a massive censorship campaign, and
> once more we're back to the problem of resources and staffing levels;
> it would also put in place a huge apparatus which could be misused to,
> say, stifle political debate (who, after all, watches the watchers?).
> I would take issue with your assertion that some of YouTube's sponsors
> are in the "porn and violent video games" business, unless you have
> some specific examples. It's true that what people consider to be
> "porn" and even "violence" varies according to personal beliefs and
> societal values, but YouTube's yardstick is "PG-13". A little bit of
> computer-game-style violence is to be expected, and there's actually
> no hard evidence that such games encourage real violence or damage the
> nation's moral fibre. The same goes for glimpses of cleavage and the
> occasional profanity.
> But self-censorship is actually one of the features of the internet as
> a whole. It's not so much throwing the onus onto those with "good
> moral fibre" as getting the whole community involved and collectively
> responsible. After all, YouTube provide this service for free, so the
> least we can do is support YouTube while we all strive to find the
> right balance between free speech and censorship.
> The system works a lot better on Wikipedia, where a clear line can be
> drawn (anything that doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia
> is simply deleted), but with true user-generated content like YouTube,
> lines are faintly drawn in drifting sands and are devilishly hard to
> pin down. In particular, it's hard to define what is meant exactly by
> "wholesome entertainment": your use of the phrase tells me there's a
> good chance that you and I would disagree on what is acceptable.
> YouTube, though, doesn't directly go by what you or I think, but
> loosely by what the MPAA recommends.
And by children, rewboss, I am referring to young teenagers of 13-16
who are still emerging from pre-pubescence. However, it is common
knowledge that YouTube is frequented by much younger children. I tend
towards the addage, "It takes a village to raise a child."
> rewboss, it sounds to me as though you believe that the sight of a
> little cleavage, an uncovered ankle or a mild swear word would send me
> into a frenzy of protest. This is not the case at all, I can assure
> you. And, the idea that 'acceptable' violence of any kind does not
> harm a child's mind is simply naive. The children who are engaged in
> violent games may not become gun toting madmen but, like a poor diet,
> it can affect their moods and, if enough is ingested, their
> sensitivity to violence. I am of the mind that watching a steady
> stream of violence on television night after night topped with a
> liberal helping of doom and gloom on the news and finished with a dose
> of lascivious viewing is too excessive for the human mind.
> With regards to the sponsors, I came upon a few of their low brow ads
> the other day when I unsuspectingly happened upon a string of sexual
> videos after typing in an innocuous keyword and whilst I cannot
> remember which category they were under, it was selling a service
> where one could enjoy affairs or flings with married women. Great
> stuff.
> I would like to assure you that I am not a squawking fish wife with a
> penchant for bible thumping who is mortified by the slightest
> titillation. The things I take offense to are things like this little
> number for instance (a title on a YouTube video): "PORN anal sex oral
> ass tit fuck get fucked cunt dick pussy porno fucking naked ..." or
> video games which encourage youngsters to blow the heads off people
> and then watch them collapse in a viscous mess. All the while being
> lauded as a hero for being a villain. This is not simply a bit of
> fun, it is dangerous. I would encourage you to type in the words
> "violent video games" and have a look at the things that children can
> access on YouTube. It is by no means "a little bit of violence".
> Depression is a very real issue with children today and adding fuel to
> the fire is reprehensible. The sponsors in this category, for
> instance, are titled "Classic Rough Extreme Brutal Shock in 70s Adult
> Flicks Ravished Beauty Forced Seductionwww.bizarrovideo.com- not
> exactly "wholesome entertainment". Or maybe you disagree.
> The wedge will keep getting thicker and more and more children will be
> exposed to more and more degradation earlier. A spate of reports
> recently surfaced about children as young as 8 sitting through "The
> Dark Knight" with their parents. There is no way that that does not
> alter a child's sense of the world and their security in it. Children
> are not little adults, they are impressionable and very emotionally
> green... they will be changed irrevocably by our lax stuardship if we
> are not more careful with them and that will not bode well for future
> parenting.
> English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for
> the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
> On Sep 9, 5:11 am, rewboss wrote:
> > Well, what you're asking for is a massive censorship campaign, and
> > once more we're back to the problem of resources and staffing levels;
> > it would also put in place a huge apparatus which could be misused to,
> > say, stifle political debate (who, after all, watches the watchers?).
> > I would take issue with your assertion that some of YouTube's sponsors
> > are in the "porn and violent video games" business, unless you have
> > some specific examples. It's true that what people consider to be
> > "porn" and even "violence" varies according to personal beliefs and
> > societal values, but YouTube's yardstick is "PG-13". A little bit of
> > computer-game-style violence is to be expected, and there's actually
> > no hard evidence that such games encourage real violence or damage the
> > nation's moral fibre. The same goes for glimpses of cleavage and the
> > occasional profanity.
> > But self-censorship is actually one of the features of the internet as
> > a whole. It's not so much throwing the onus onto those with "good
> > moral fibre" as getting the whole community involved and collectively
> > responsible. After all, YouTube provide this service for free, so the
> > least we can do is support YouTube while we all strive to find the
> > right balance between free speech and censorship.
> > The system works a lot better on Wikipedia, where a clear line can be
> > drawn (anything that doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia
> > is simply deleted), but with true user-generated content like YouTube,
> > lines are faintly drawn in drifting sands and are devilishly hard to
> > pin down. In particular, it's hard to define what is meant exactly by
> > "wholesome entertainment": your use of the phrase tells me there's a
> > good chance that you and I would disagree on what is acceptable.
> > YouTube, though, doesn't directly go by what you or I think, but
> > loosely by what the MPAA recommends.- Hide quoted text -
> And by children, rewboss, I am referring to young teenagers of 13-16
> who are still emerging from pre-pubescence. However, it is common
> knowledge that YouTube is frequented by much younger children. I tend
> towards the addage, "It takes a village to raise a child."
> On Sep 9, 9:04 am, Utopiang wrote:
> > rewboss, it sounds to me as though you believe that the sight of a
> > little cleavage, an uncovered ankle or a mild swear word would send me
> > into a frenzy of protest. This is not the case at all, I can assure
> > you. And, the idea that 'acceptable' violence of any kind does not
> > harm a child's mind is simply naive. The children who are engaged in
> > violent games may not become gun toting madmen but, like a poor diet,
> > it can affect their moods and, if enough is ingested, their
> > sensitivity to violence. I am of the mind that watching a steady
> > stream of violence on television night after night topped with a
> > liberal helping of doom and gloom on the news and finished with a dose
> > of lascivious viewing is too excessive for the human mind.
> > With regards to the sponsors, I came upon a few of their low brow ads
> > the other day when I unsuspectingly happened upon a string of sexual
> > videos after typing in an innocuous keyword and whilst I cannot
> > remember which category they were under, it was selling a service
> > where one could enjoy affairs or flings with married women. Great
> > stuff.
> > I would like to assure you that I am not a squawking fish wife with a
> > penchant for bible thumping who is mortified by the slightest
> > titillation. The things I take offense to are things like this little
> > number for instance (a title on a YouTube video): "PORN anal sex oral
> > ass tit fuck get fucked cunt dick pussy porno fucking naked ..." or
> > video games which encourage youngsters to blow the heads off people
> > and then watch them collapse in a viscous mess. All the while being
> > lauded as a hero for being a villain. This is not simply a bit of
> > fun, it is dangerous. I would encourage you to type in the words
> > "violent video games" and have a look at the things that children can
> > access on YouTube. It is by no means "a little bit of violence".
> > Depression is a very real issue with children today and adding fuel to
> > the fire is reprehensible. The sponsors in this category, for
> > instance, are titled "Classic Rough Extreme Brutal Shock in 70s Adult
> > Flicks Ravished Beauty Forced Seductionwww.bizarrovideo.com-not > > exactly "wholesome entertainment". Or maybe you disagree.
> > The wedge will keep getting thicker and more and more children will be
> > exposed to more and more degradation earlier. A spate of reports
> > recently surfaced about children as young as 8 sitting through "The
> > Dark Knight" with their parents. There is no way that that does not
> > alter a child's sense of the world and their security in it. Children
> > are not little adults, they are impressionable and very emotionally
> > green... they will be changed irrevocably by our lax stuardship if we
> > are not more careful with them and that will not bode well for future
> > parenting.
> > English philosopher Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for
> > the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing."
> > On Sep 9, 5:11 am, rewboss wrote:
> > > Well, what you're asking for is a massive censorship campaign, and
> > > once more we're back to the problem of resources and staffing levels;
> > > it would also put in place a huge apparatus which could be misused to,
> > > say, stifle political debate (who, after all, watches the watchers?).
> > > I would take issue with your assertion that some of YouTube's sponsors
> > > are in the "porn and violent video games" business, unless you have
> > > some specific examples. It's true that what people consider to be
> > > "porn" and even "violence" varies according to personal beliefs and
> > > societal values, but YouTube's yardstick is "PG-13". A little bit of
> > > computer-game-style violence is to be expected, and there's actually
> > > no hard evidence that such games encourage real violence or damage the
> > > nation's moral fibre. The same goes for glimpses of cleavage and the
> > > occasional profanity.
> > > But self-censorship is actually one of the features of the internet as
> > > a whole. It's not so much throwing the onus onto those with "good
> > > moral fibre" as getting the whole community involved and collectively
> > > responsible. After all, YouTube provide this service for free, so the
> > > least we can do is support YouTube while we all strive to find the
> > > right balance between free speech and censorship.
> > > The system works a lot better on Wikipedia, where a clear line can be
> > > drawn (anything that doesn't look like it belongs in an encyclopedia
> > > is simply deleted), but with true user-generated content like YouTube,
> > > lines are faintly drawn in drifting sands and are devilishly hard to
> > > pin down. In particular, it's hard to define what is meant exactly by
> > > "wholesome entertainment": your use of the phrase tells me there's a
> > > good chance that you and I would disagree on what is acceptable.
> > > YouTube, though, doesn't directly go by what you or I think, but
> > > loosely by what the MPAA recommends.- Hide quoted text -
Well, if, as you say, it takes a village to raise a child, then that
puts the onus fairly and squarely on the wider community. We all have
a part to play in this: not just YouTube, but its members, parents,
teachers, law enforcement agencies and so on.
There is violence for show everywhere, not just on YouTube. You can
pretty much guarantee that if the 13-16-year-olds (who should not be
surfing the net unsupervised, if the "village" were doing its job)
couldn't find what they wanted on YouTube, they'd go somewhere they
could find -- arguably in real life.
There's been a lot of discussion lately about the effect, if any, of
violent games on the mindset of children and what role they may have
in real acts of violence. The evidence, though, seems to suggest that
violent games don't encourage violence; rather, that people with
violent tendencies to begin with are attracted to violent video games.
But the jury's still out on that.
The wider issue really has to do with how we are bringing up our
children. If we're talking about depression and other similar
problems, it seems to me that the problem is of children spending most
of their free time in front of the TV set or the computer instead of
getting out into the fresh air. My take is that modern forms of
entertainment are damaging not primarily because of the content, but
because they are passive and don't engage the imagination: young
people simply aren't playing as much as they used to.
As for the sponsor ads, I've never seen any that fit your description
-- but then I don't search for porn or violence on YouTube. However,
if we're talking about AdSense ads, then those are not specifically
YouTube sponsors, but advertisers who advertise using Google AdSense.
Google uses its technology to scan the page for clues as to what kind
of ads would fit best: if somebody puts adult-themed keywords in the
video description, Google is likely to serve up adult-themed ads.
YouTube -- and, to an extent Google -- don't have much control over
that. This is sometimes what causes very inappropriate ad placements,
not just on YouTube: an article about the negative social impact of
divorce may end up being accompanied by an ad for a divorce lawyer.
It's regrettable, and Google are continually trying to tweak their
code to minimize these problems, but computers can't think.
|
