AT&T Tech Support 360
- Related Stories
-
In Finland shooting, fallout for YouTube?
November 7, 2007 -
Video sites grapple with specter of smut
June 19, 2006 -
Glitch hits McVeigh execution broadcast
June 11, 2001
(continued from previous page)
Auvinen had more than 300 YouTube subscribers--meaning each time he uploaded a video they would automatically be alerted--and a large number of them shared his views, according to Baumer. "They would subscribe to each other's videos," she said.
CNET News.com reviewed clips from some of those connected to this group. The material contained montages of Nazi historical footage, endorsements of Timothy McVeigh, known as the "Oklahoma City bomber," and anti-Semitic slogans. Some featured still photographs of dead bodies and people firing guns.
One member of the group wrote this entry on his or her profile page: "Just another white prophet spreading white pride. Formerly (deleted) that was apparently banned for spreading racial realism, and the truth of white pride. I guess some people just 'can't handle the truth.' Back with a vengeance, hope to spread the message even further."
The user uploaded videos to YouTube with such titles as "Multicultural Nightmare," "Secure the Existence of the White Race," and "White Pride." None of these clips apparently violate YouTube's terms-of-use agreement, which bans "pornography, obscene or defamatory material."
To many, such materials are hate speech and should be removed. To others, removing them is censorship. Palfrey said he fully supports free speech, but as someone who helps run a blog network at Harvard, he frequently strikes material that he considers inappropriate.
He thinks the YouTube community, like any other, must adopt social norms that govern how people act.
Baumer concurs, but believes it should be left up to the YouTube community to decide what's appropriate. She said there are ample signs the community will make smart decisions.
Shortly after the shootings, dozens of people began logging on to the profile page of someone calling themselves NietzscheanSpirit, who had voiced support for Sturmgeist89's views, Baumer said. Most of the people who commented condemned both.
A search for NietzscheanSpirit's profile on Thursday showed that it had been closed by the account holder.
"I think there should be more of a dialogue between YouTubers," Baumer said. "Who at YouTube is going to make the decisions about what is appropriate? YouTube is not just a company but also a community of users. And they should be allowed to negotiate criteria for censorship."
See more CNET content tagged:
YouTube,
censorship,
speech,
video,
Google Inc.
I agree that YouTube should just lay out their rules, enforce them and if the video doesn't violate said rules, then that's that. We don't need any more "nannies" in this world trying to protect us from every little scrap and scratch.
We took the bull by the horns from the begining and we pay attention to what is going up on our site. To begin reviewing content at this point in time, You Tube would have to employ a mimimun of 100 workers, and having them working all shifts to get the situation in hand.
Society is in a sad state, focused solely on profit without responsibility and rather than our lives being an apology, we have opted to make them a statement.
It is time that we realize that while actions like this are the responsibility of those who commit them, corporations that provide forums for this type of communication must take some responsibility.
Are we learning nothing this year?
A fair solution to this issue would be to allow users to 'vote' whether a specific material is too offensive to be remain posted. If more unique visitors that actually view a particular video, etc., vote it down, than up, with a given minimum threshold of valid votes, it gets taken offline, automatically. No extra screening employees, no power of censorship in the hands of a few.
The Internet provides this amazing method of true democracy, and consensus of the group conscience. We could actually apply this in many facets of our modern life. 1000's of minds working in concert is better and smarter than even the smartest single mind.
I have never agreed with censorship, in many ways it is actually illegal, especially when dealing with copyrighted works. To alter (even by censorship) a copyrighted work, without the copyright holders permission, is violation a of copyright law. Not that this kids videos are copyrighted, but in other cases, it does apply.
It is so frightening how ready people appear to be to embrace facism and loss of basic freedoms. Either that or its just more propoganda, stirred up by those who wish to push us in that direction. You decide and think for yourself, dont let someone else decide for you, and by all means do not ever make it someone elses responsibility to decide for you.
If you don't like what someone says, stop listening to them.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
So, let's say someone is saying something about you. You are quite free to disagree and stop listening. Problem is, others are listening too, they LIKE believing what that someone is saying about you, and really don't care whether it costs you or your family jobs, money, reputation or, too often, worse. It gives them something juicy to share with their neighbours and, after all, they have the freedom to hear, believe, and say what they want about you or anything (or anyone) else. The truth is irrelevant, since they don't know you personally and really don't care what happens to you. You're certainly free to deny the story at your next interview for a job or home mortgage, but the person interviewing you is also free, to say no and go on to someone else. What's YOUR freedom worth, now?
someone they disagree with politically such as conservatives like
Michelle Malkin who has had political videos removed from
Youtube as "hate speech." You see conservatives = hate speech
in the mind of Google bots, but to these same people, some
lunatic with a gun explaining how he is going to kill everyone he
knows is someone expressing free speech and is someone we
need to listen to in order to gain better understanding of him.
The problem with sites such as this is not their inability to police
the site, it is their lack of ability to employ common sense
policing policies.
As with immigration, government officials incapable of enforcing their own laws would place their burden on private people, encouraging us all to turn in our neighbors.
At the same time, Congress is considering giving the Department of Justice the authority to pursue civil cases.
YouTube has the right to do whatever they decide with the content posted by users. Ultimately, economic factors will decide this question--which path will result in the least attrition of their user base?
Its when people begin saying that YouTube must do this, or can not do that, or worse when people say there should be laws to tell them what to do or not to do about this type of thing. Hello, its their site, and your not paying for use of it are you? They are under no obligation whatsoever in my eyes to do, or not do anything. If you don't like YouTube content then make your own damn site, and then you can be the censor of what is offensive or not.
Personally if I were a major user of video sharing sites I would want the one who censors the least, but informs the most. Tag content as violent, or sexual, or whatever, but let me decide whether to view it or not, let me be my own personal censor, not someone else. By informing the user of the nature of the content, before they actually view it, can help avoid these huge issues, because I suspect a lot of peoples complaints are related to times when they accidentally saw something they really did not want to see, and had no warning vs. something they think no one should be allowed to see (which no one should have the right to actually do).
Freedom of Expression is the treatment.
Knowledge is the cure.
As many people, obviously yourself included, fail to acknowledge is that with freedom comes responsibility. Most people want freedom, but do not acknowledge the responsibilities that come with it.
Although part of this companies objective is to access the commons for as many content producers as it can it is still a company.
Being a company makes Youtube sensitive.
Mind you if youtube was a commons system then it too would have sensitivity issues.
So anyway if youtube for reasons of legal sensitivity want to remove content then you are dealing with a legal issue.
So what law is there that catagorically states people accessing data on a public medium can't see videos made by a mass murderer that are not actually snuff.If you do go down this road without bashing heads as to what is acceptable you could end up with more unacceptable things happening.
So the answer to whether youtube should play the parent the answer is not really unless the legal framework for doing so has been decided by all interested groups.
Personally though yes i would have liked to ponder what was triggering such uncontrollable desires.
Perhaps the real question is are some people on earth ending up with serious psychological problems and what are all the abuses that can produce this psychological problem in people.
I think it's good to remember that many mind issues do relate to nurture issues and nature issues are more subtle and not of direct influence but instead factors(people making money from chemical solutions think the exact oppsite yet the evidence point this way and not theirs especially as the real data is comming of age) and thus is why you may see the same looking person in prison as might be your helpful neighbour.
If you are a geneticist and think you can prove me wrong on that point i would love to see how think you can do it with real evidence.
-
by HABAKKUK =
July 28, 2008 1:15 PM PDT
- VISIT MY SITE,www.youtube.com/HABAKKUP.Im going to command the armies of the planet to the real FREEDOM.The armies of Babylon,this is the way!!!GO YOU TUBE!!!!!
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 32 Comments >>