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: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:27 PM
link   
(to all who have been good enough to comment.)


My personal opinion is that something needs to be done to stop such videos becoming available on sites such as youtube.

I agree that a full ban is extreme,the reason that option was included was to gage peoples reactions and find out their opinions.


Bottom line is,
Violent criminal acts are not tolerated in society,therefore violent criminal acts that are turned into entertainment should not be tolerated either.




posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Nobody forces anyone to click a link to a video at YouTube.

If you see a video, and then are bothered or offended by it, well then, blame yourself.

That said...

Some folks tag things as something they are not, or spam keywords in hopes of getting views from people seeking something completely different.. In those cases, the video should be taken down, and it's poster's account suspended.

Still though, if you are afraid to see something, why go to YouTube in the first place? Might as well cut off the television too....

[edit on 18-9-2008 by Azazelus]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Teknikal
 





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.


Every thread posted on this site is viewed first by a moderator,why is that?


If someone wants to upload a video to a site they should apply for a moderator to view it.This may slow down the rate of how many videos appear,but its better than doing nothing at all.


runetang in his/her post made some helpful suggestions too,and the site owners could quite easily apply them to their network.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





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


Apology graciously accepted.


I don't remember saying my opinion is more valid


But i did point out that,(if you actually look at what it says in the various freedom of speech acts) there are always limitations,which means the freedom given is not total freedom.

If these restrictions already exist then my opinion is valid too because it is within the freedom of speech acts.

ok,now i said it,lol.







[edit on 18-9-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   
There are a few reasons that pre-screening videos on a site like YouTube wouldn't work.

As already stated, the pure volume of videos makes such a policy virtually impossible. If YouTube were to institute such a policy, the backlog of videos would become so great, the community would rebel. Some other site would come into existence which didn't pre-screen, and then YouTube would fall in popularity, while this new site would takes its place. Then we would be having this same conversation about that site.

Seond, putting the power to censor videos into the hands of a few, before the community has access to the videos is a slippery slope. The potential abuse of power by moderators, censoring videos because of personal politics, or because they are personally offended by a certain video which is not breaking any laws or community TC's, is very great. Even the ATS mods have to suffer through the oft-posted "Conspiracy by mods!" threads...

The community is built to monitor itself. Flag videos which are inappropriate. Comments, too. Be active.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Should Youtube be banned?
No, if only for this very funny clip of a dancing Indian midget
www.youtube.com...

On a serious note I do think you make a very good point about the site being policed better as it seems ´Middle eastern beheading´ videos are all the rage and fully accessible to children everywhere.
Cheers Karl



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
reply to post by jakyll
 


Should Youtube be banned?
No, if only for this very funny clip of a dancing Indian midget
www.youtube.com...




Censorship is never the answer. Access to some content should be age restricted however. Anyone posting inappropriate material in the wrong section should be banned for life from posting video's.

It boils down to the integrity of those who manage YouTube. If they don't self-police they are scum anyway. If ATS did not police these threads I would not be here. It appears the YouTube management could care less, so personally, I show my opinion of that by never going there. The only time I go to YouTube is through a link from other sites to something of interest. Most of what is on YouTube is for children and adolescents anyway.

Anyone posting videos of crimes should probably get an enhanced sentence. If for no other reason, only a genuine sociopath would do that and they are extra dangerous to society. The people posting this stuff are the same people that fill our jails anyway.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by Blaine91555]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I read the other day that YouTube is losing a HUGE amount of money per day just for the bandwidth. That being said, with this economy, YouTube won't be around for long. NO ONE can figure out how to make money with it.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



I don't remember saying my opinion is more valid


Then what is the point of your proposal? Why does "something need to be done?"



But i did point out that,(if you actually look at what it says in the various freedom of speech acts) there are always limitations,which means the freedom given is not total freedom.


The old "you can't yell fire in a theatre" eh? Well, posting a video on YouTube is not going to be the direct cause of a stampede and physical injury to those in the immediate proximity of said display.



If these restrictions already exist then my opinion is valid too because it is within the freedom of speech acts.


And exactly what "acts" and "restrictions" are you referring to? Because there have been a lot of "laws" passed over the years that are against the Constitution, going back at least as far as the Civil War.

So you're saying that it is already legal to ban free expression then? Sadly, that may indeed be the case. Welcome to the Fascist States of America folks.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 



Anyone posting videos of crimes should probably get an enhanced sentence. If for no other reason, only a genuine sociopath would do that and they are extra dangerous to society.


I'm not usually one for new laws of any sort, since we already have far too many, but I think you might be onto something with that idea. Something to think about anyway.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 



Should Youtube be banned?
No, if only for this very funny clip of a dancing Indian midget


Now that's sick! A perfect example of why YouTube should be banned. If we allow this to be seen, no Indian midgets will be safe from comedic exploitation the world over. People everywhere will suddenly have their cameras at the ready to snag shots of Indian little people to post all over the web. None of them will be safe, and none of them will get paid.


I am not serious of course, but I'm sure there are people out there who would be highly offended that we might find this little Indian guy funny or amusing.



On a serious note I do think you make a very good point about the site being policed better as it seems ´Middle eastern beheading´ videos are all the rage and fully accessible to children everywhere.


Always the children. Where the hell are the parents?! No more policing!!! It's time for people to step up and take responsibility for themselves and their children, before the government steps in to life for them.

About the only modifications or restrictions that I would tolerate, would be proper categorization. "Warning, this video contains extreme graphic violence. You must click here to proceed." Or "Warning, this video contains coarse language." You get the picture. I would like to know if the video I am about to click on has a whole spray of F-bombs, so I know not to click when there are kids in the room, or my grandmother even.

So perhaps a "rating" system would be in order, like they do with the movies, but even in more detail. But access should not be denied.

And no one give me anything about "identity/age verfication" either. I value my anonymity in this police-state of affairs.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Every thread posted on this site is viewed first by a moderator,why is that?


Here on ATS? No they're not. They are subject to review once they've been posted though. So if you post something against T&C it'll get pulled pretty fast.

But the T&C is clearly stated and agreed to when you join. Just like I don't have to wear shoes in my home, but agree to do so when I go into the kwiki-mart.



If someone wants to upload a video to a site they should apply for a moderator to view it.


That's censorship. Look, maybe you'd be better off having a YouTube-esqe site that is more restrictive, but I happen to think YouTube is already restricted enough. I think they should let porn on there too. After all, there is a similar site that does just that anyway, all you have to do is click a disclaimer.

So tell me, what if I decide to post some horrific videos on my own website? What gives you the right to tell me what I am or am not allowed to host on my own site? And who are you to tell YouTube how to run their site for that matter?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





And exactly what "acts" and "restrictions" are you referring to? Because there have been a lot of "laws" passed over the years that are against the Constitution, going back at least as far as the Civil War.


On page 3 i quoted the limitations from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,and they appear to have been in place from the very beginning.


Example concerning US rights can be found here,the cases shown are for the right of freedom of speech and against it.(see Miller v. California for example of against.)
en.wikipedia.org...:United_States_free_speech_case_law





So you're saying that it is already legal to ban free expression then? Sadly, that may indeed be the case. Welcome to the Fascist States of America folks.



The US seems to be the only country that believes in total free speech,other countries do have some kind of restrictions in place.

But,if you want to see the act that effects the US the most,look up the Patriot Act.(and its not just free speech that is effected)



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





I think they should let porn on there too. After all, there is a similar site that does just that anyway, all you have to do is click a disclaimer.


If we're thinking of the same site then its part of the youtube network.





So tell me, what if I decide to post some horrific videos on my own website? What gives you the right to tell me what I am or am not allowed to host on my own site? And who are you to tell YouTube how to run their site for that matter?



If these horrific videos show gratuitous violence,sex crimes and other criminal behavior then every single person in the world who finds them offensive has every right to oppose the uploading of them.


Who am i?
I'm someone like you.
With my right to freedom of speech i'm sharing my opinion that afore mentioned videos should not appear on line.
With your right to freedom of speech you a sharing your opinion on the right for such things to be shown.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Please don't misunderstand me. I have no problem at all with you stating your opinion on the subject. However, for your opinion to be validated, you would have to silence me and my violent vids. How is that fair?

What you are calling for is the setting of a very dangerous precedent. To have the goalposts moved (yet again), to have the heat under the frog turned up a bit higher now.



If these horrific videos show gratuitous violence,sex crimes and other criminal behavior then every single person in the world who finds them offensive has every right to oppose the uploading of them.


They most certainly do not, any more than people who oppose the exploitation if Indian little people and, or who oppose your brand of politics, etc. The only right they have is not to watch.

If you ask me, I think that Paris Hilton has done more damage to our society, particulalry young girls, than any video of kangaroo boxers or terrorist decapitators.

So if you get YouTube pulled, I want Paris pulled. And American Idol along with it. In fact, anything that doesn't have sophisticated cultural value. And the only newscaster that should be allowed on the airwaves is Lou Dobbs. History Channel and Lou Dobbs, all the time. That's it.




But,if you want to see the act that effects the US the most,look up the Patriot Act.(and its not just free speech that is effected)


Oh man, don't even get me started there. If you tell me you support the Patriot Act, I'm putting you on my "Foe" list which is reserved for only the biggest idiots and disinfo agents I have found here on ATS.



Example concerning US rights can be found here,the cases shown are for the right of freedom of speech and against it.


You are aware that citeable case law only goes back to 1933? And more importantly why?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 





Please don't misunderstand me. I have no problem at all with you stating your opinion on the subject. However, for your opinion to be validated, you would have to silence me and my violent vids. How is that fair?


Is it fair to the people or the animals in these videos to have their rights violated even more? (humans more than the animals obviously.) Is it not bad enough that a person can be a victim of a brutal and uprovoked attack,that they then have the knowledge that its been filmed and circulated and sick people are laughing at it.





What you are calling for is the setting of a very dangerous precedent. To have the goalposts moved (yet again), to have the heat under the frog turned up a bit higher now.


I agree totally,subjects like this always have such a risk attached to it.






So if you get YouTube pulled, I want Paris pulled. And American Idol along with it. In fact, anything that doesn't have sophisticated cultural value. And the only newscaster that should be allowed on the airwaves is Lou Dobbs. History Channel and Lou Dobbs, all the time. That's it.


Y'know,that sounds good to me.lol.






Oh man, don't even get me started there. If you tell me you support the Patriot Act, I'm putting you on my "Foe" list which is reserved for only the biggest idiots and disinfo agents I have found here on ATS.


Very tempted to say yes

But no,i don't.When it came out i was expecting it to last about a minute coz of how much it violates US rights.






You are aware that citeable case law only goes back to 1933? And more importantly why?


Its not the page i wanted to show you,but for the life of me i can't find the site i was looking at earlier.






[edit on 18-9-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Is it fair to the people or the animals in these videos to have their rights violated even more? (humans more than the animals obviously.) Is it not bad enough that a person can be a victim of a brutal and uprovoked attack,that they then have the knowledge that its been filmed and circulated and sick people are laughing at it.


Perhaps not, but that is the price we pay for freedom.

I know a few war vets that are really screwed up. Should we not allow war footage on television? After all, that could even be considered a public safety issue if some war footage triggers one of these guys.

And again I cite as an example, the hanging of Saddam Hussein. I take that as legitimate news worthy and historical footage, yet I don't think it was necessary to broadcast on public television, thanks to YouTube.

And even the idiot kangaroo kid. I watched the video, and I admit that I laughed at the idiot. Do I think that what he did was right? Certainly not, I think he should go to jail for it. But do I think he had the right to post it, and that I have the right to watch it? Without a shadow of doubt.

And another example. What about Cops, Amazing Videos, and all those other shows like that? Do you think those people really want to see themselves in those predicaments, over and over again, and being displayed to a much wider audience even than YouTube users?



I agree totally,subjects like this always have such a risk attached to it.


I for one think things need to be turned right around and headed in the opposite direction of the current trend against liberty. Banning YouTube will not solve anything, and will only serve fascism.

End all be all here, you have made a worthy debate, but I am far from convinced. And I hope that others have seen the danger and the folly of your proposition. Yourself included.



[edit on 9/18/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
(to all who have been good enough to comment.)


My personal opinion is that something needs to be done to stop such videos becoming available on sites such as youtube.

I agree that a full ban is extreme,the reason that option was included was to gage peoples reactions and find out their opinions.


Bottom line is,
Violent criminal acts are not tolerated in society,therefore violent criminal acts that are turned into entertainment should not be tolerated either.


Stopping videos like this from being viewed by anyone (or adults) is the same as telling you what to write or say in a public forum. It's the same as to stop you from expressing your views. What's the difference from the Government stopping videos and websites, such as this one, from talking about the government and banning youtube for allowing all kind of info?

Besides, because we are able to see videos like this, we are able to stop or try to stop things like that from happening again. Because of IDIOTS like the ones in the videos we can recognize the savages and put them in jail. Imagine all the criminal things happening that we don't know about because they are not shown.

IMHO, all kind and type of info should be allow in the web everywhere, NOTHING should be filtered. It's up to you to choose what to watch.



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

Originally posted by jakyll
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.



So you want youtube to filter out certain things. Well that is a fairly hard to do seeing how the people who would be viewing this videos may have a different opinion of what is offensive opposed to you or someone else. And do you know how many videos are posted A DAY on youtube. Why would youtube spend the money on hiring more staff to review videos when they can just keep doing what they are doing and make more money and success. Also that would take away from a lot of youtubes general audience of people. They are there to provide for people who want to share things with the world. As long as they aren't posting child porn or showing an animal getting its fur ripped off (which they have videos of on the PETA website.) I don't really think it's any ones place to interfere.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Youtube is a microcosm of our society and if our society is represented by youtube and its users..this planet is doomed..you tube has no redeeming values whatsoever. Everyone on youtube is so self absorbed its sickening..all you have to do is keep an eye on " What people are watching now" at the top of the home page and you will see what I mean.
I'm not saying ban it..but it is a vehicle for morons who are seeking nothing but attention and hopefully 10 minutes of fame.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join