It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should YouTube Be Banned?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
And,as you're taking this topic down the inevitable route,do you think its ok for pedophilia and beastiality sites to exist on line?


You must be losing your agument if you resort to that. Photos of pedophilia and beastiliality are a crime to posess.

But following your argument, should we also ban films of police abuse? Some people might be offended by those videos even though showing those videos is NOT a crime. Should we ban videos of war crimes? Should we ban videos of robberies? Of street attacks? Of people the authorities are trying to identify?

Please...explain...where should the line be drawn?




posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 



...just dont bitch when its you or your family getting dragged down the streets all charred and burnt...


Yes, don't let anyone see it when the fascist police-state censors the images of my freedom-loving family resisting and the price of that resistance.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



I personally draw the line at animal abuse and violent attacks on people.


And why should I or anyone else care where you personally draw the line? Who made you God? (Don't take offense, I'm not saying you really think you are god.)



There is no reason to keep showing the video.


Except maybe for that little diddy called freedom of speech!



And,as you're taking this topic down the inevitable route,do you think its ok for pedophilia and beastiality sites to exist on line?


Yes, as a matter of fact I do. While it is indeed illegal to posess such material, I think they should be dedicating all of their efforts at eradicating production, not dissemination of such material. In fact, I would think that making such sites legal would make it easier for them to go after the real criminals.



Such sites are available to anyone who uses the internet,including children.Sex,i have no problem with,but sites like the ones mentioned above and sites that cater to the more violent and abusive kind of porn should be banned.


So it's okay for kids to watch "regular" porn then?


In case you failed to see my point there with that question, I was pointing out how irrelevant your emotional appeal was by whining about "oh the children, the children."



The only information gleaned from such clips as the kangaroo video is this;some humans are sick and twisted.
And,as the vast majority of us already know this,we don't need such informative videos on line.


So? That still does not show me how your opinion is more relevant than mine. Or how your opinion should supersede freedom, liberty, and everything that this nation was founded on. I really don't care if they're showing kangaroos or people who like to puke on eachother. All I care about is the preservation of my rights as an American in an age when those rights are under siege at every turn and being stripped away each day.

[edit on 9/17/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Should sites such as YouTube be banned or forced into better policing of its content?

The reason i ask is because the clips showing abuse to animals and attacks on people that seem to be on the increase.

(as shown in the video of this thread,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I find things so sickening that i can't even bring myself to watch them.

YouTube allows you to flag such clips but in their terms of agreement there are no rules that state such content is forbidden to be uploaded.

Copyright is usually the focus as it involves big businesses losing money,but isn't it about time something was done to stop this outrage??


(apologies if this is not in the right forum)






I don't say this to be rude...But if you start expecting things to be banned as petty as that your asking for more to get banned. The government has taken away our liberties and manipulates the laws to their benefit...The internet is our last salvation from the government. WE DON'T WANT ANYMORE REGULATIONS AND RULES! So please, if you don't like it just don't watch it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Oh my dear God. GO WATCH TELEVISION BETWEEN 6 AM to 6PM if you are so afraid of questionable material. No one forces you to watch youtube or any other material. It is sick to even suggest something like banning something which is totally voluntary - this is like the abortion thread which I loathe from bottom of my heart.

Look, no one forces you to watch anything (unless you happen to be in Guantanamo or such other place) or make unwanted babies. It is your own karma, your own choice, your own cross to carry. Get a grip of your life already. This is sick!

Respectfully,

-v



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
It's a tough question, but overall i'd have to go for the more liberal option of letting people post anything (as long as it's within the current rules). Making it stricter will only result in an eventual landslide of rules that will follow and eventually we will end up like China where the whole internet is censored or banned.

As someone said before, if you don't want to watch it you don't have to. But it's good to know you have this sort of thing available, even if you don't watch it. It signifies the freedom of speech which we're meant to be proud of and that we go around killing people in the name of.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
You can't get rid of anything by banning one site you do that and ten more will appear to cash in. If someone can't upload a video to you tube they will upload it on the next site.

What this question really comes down to is should the Internet be banned.

Maybe it will be.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Sonya610
 





You must be losing your agument if you resort to that. Photos of pedophilia and beastiliality are a crime to posess.


Its also a crime to abuse animals,attack people and film it while it happens.
And millions of people do not need to own pictures of videos of such things when they can be seen for free on line.

I stated in a previous post where i draw the line.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





And why should I or anyone else care where you personally draw the line? Who made you God? (Don't take offense, I'm not saying you really think you are god.)


You asked where i would draw the line,i answered.If you don't want to know,don't bother to ask.





So it's okay for kids to watch "regular" porn then?


Not at all.
I just didn't make it clear that i don't have a problem with sex,but that doesn't mean i agree with children watching it.




[edit on 18-9-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Demonik Rob
 





I don't say this to be rude...But if you start expecting things to be banned as petty as that your asking for more to get banned. The government has taken away our liberties and manipulates the laws to their benefit...The internet is our last salvation from the government. WE DON'T WANT ANYMORE REGULATIONS AND RULES! So please, if you don't like it just don't watch it.



Its not rude,its a valid point.
But the attitude of,if you don't like it don't watch it,makes it possible for these sought of things to continue.


Is it too much to ask that sites such as youtube view videos before agreeing to them being uploaded?
I don't think so.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   


Is it too much to ask that sites such as youtube view videos before agreeing to them being uploaded?


And are you going to pay for people to view sixty five thousand videos a day that's just not feasible unless you want the Government to run it and use your taxes anyway.

By my calculations that would be 226 people viewing 24 hours a day with no breaks and the amount of videos is rising.

I should point out I estimated the 65,000 at 5 minutes length each some are considerable longer though.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Teknikal]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966.

Entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49.


....Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.



Article 19

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.





Its the same for the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which is limited by such things as the Miller Test.It can also be limited in such cases as libel,slander,the press,politics and criminals making a prophet from their biography.



Freedom of speech,thought and expression does not mean total freedom.










[edit on 18-9-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
nothing on you tube should be banned...it shows in stark reality how sick and stupid people can be. but it can also show information that people should know to bring about change. anyone caught doing something illegal on you tube is providing evidence for their own prosecution. and if the person is that stupid, it's probably a good reason to have that person taken out of society and locked up anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by ROO-meh
 





and some sort of ebay type flagging ?


That never seems to work.
Some videos have been flagged up to a 100 times or more and they are still on line.


No. Without HANDS ON MODERATED ACTION, it is utterly pointless to expect change on youtube.

Youtube needs human moderation. Google need to look at that. Because, honestly, its a joke as it is. I know that for a fact, having seen a comment thread go insanely abusive. Oh boy it's fun to do, but, uhh.. oO

Till youtube gets proactive and changes the comments section into a forum of sorts with even a shadow of moderation and control, it will continue to be a place to hound people for fun.

Heres to youtube never pulling their finger out



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
No, it should not be banned, nor should it be subject to restrictive content enforcement. If someone gets to decide what is and what is not appropriate, then how long before we as a site are deemed by the authorities to be 'inappropriate'?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I use youtube every day and have my own channel, i even put up clips from time to time. I comment and keep up on other people's postings.

What I DONT do is look at videos of cruelty to animals and children, the killing of animals, the abusing of children or anything terrible like this. I do not feel the innate urge to search these types of videos out and watch them, which you have to do if you want to see them because they're not exactly going to be on the front page.

In summary, only twisted people, perverts, and pedophiles will actually actively seek out these types of videos. This is a fringe portion of the youtube community and should not be the reason to close an entire website that does so much good for so many people's lives every day; some of you have no idea.

Although one thing they could do, the youtube staff that is, would be to track the IPs of the folks who commonly watch certain "flagged" videos that have been left up with no indication of a flag so that the visitors' IP's could be automaticly submitted into a database. If you accidently watched it -- dont worry -- its just one, you wouldnt go onto any perp list. Only people who's IP addresses showed distinct and obvious behavior by hitting numerous of these flagged videos, well beyond anything that could be accidental, would be potentially put into a perp list.

From there, the people on the list could be issued a single warning. If they spook, make a new email somewhere, and make a new youtube account, dont worry, their behavior will be recorded again and they cant keep running. Maybe others would comply and then theyd stop showing up as visitors of the flagged videos. Either way, this would be the way to go .. over shutting down youtube altogether. Never!

I'll get out on the street with a picket sign!



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



You asked where i would draw the line,i answered.If you don't want to know,don't bother to ask.


Point taken, I apologize. But really, this topic still begs the question why you think your opinion is more valid than the Constitution.



I just didn't make it clear that i don't have a problem with sex,but that doesn't mean i agree with children watching it.


But your reasoning that material should be banned from the internet was stated to be your fears that children might see it. You can't have it both ways. Either you can have freedom and exercise responsibility, or put it all in the hands of government.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Should sites such as YouTube be banned or forced into better policing of its content?

The reason i ask is because the clips showing abuse to animals and attacks on people that seem to be on the increase.

(as shown in the video of this thread,
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I find things so sickening that i can't even bring myself to watch them.


Then why are you watching them? Something must have caused you to look at animal abuse videos on there. If they are so sickening, don't watch them.

Banned? No way! That is ridiculous. But if 'sickening' is the reason to ban something, I recommend that they ban they should ban FOXNEWS, because I feel sickened by the sycophantically, sophomoric excuse for journalism. Fair and Balanced, hardly. But it is ridiculous to say we should ban FOXNEWS just because masquerading falsehoods as truth and their editorials as journalism 'sickens' me...

The first amendment.
DocMoreau



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 11:43 AM
link   
There no way to censor the internet short of shutting it down the absolute worst thing they can do to take a site offline is to redirect it's DNS in which case the IP adress will still bring up the site.

Even ISP filters wont do much with SSL proxies applications like TOR and Darknets.

The internet isn't for kids or those who can't handle life I suggest you throw out your computer and hide under the bed for the rest of your life.

Say you got your way and You Tube got banned do you really not think someone else would take it's place immediately look at companys like the RIAA trying to control filesharing they basicly turned a small problem into a big problem with their misguided attempts.

You make a fuss about something and more people will learn about it.

Stupid argument anyway there are far far worse sites than You Tube already out there.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DocMoreau
 





Then why are you watching them? Something must have caused you to look at animal abuse videos on there. If they are so sickening, don't watch them.


I said i don't watch them,you have quoted this comment yourself.Do try and pay attention to what i say.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join