Youtube Gore Videos

[Oliver]

Reviewed and then what???

Applying their usual policies concerning such content, namely:

Don't Cross the Line

Here are some common-sense rules that will help you steer clear of trouble:

• YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content. If this describes your video, even if it's a video of yourself, don't post it on YouTube. Also, be advised that we work closely with law enforcement and we report child exploitation. Please read our Safety Tips and stay safe on YouTube.
• Don't post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, or bomb making.
• Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone being physically hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don't post it.
• YouTube is not a shock site. Don't post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies or similar things intended to shock or disgust.
• *snip*

Source: http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines

 

[Pardalis]

Concerning the Dwyer-Suicide, yes - the autopsy and the amputation worked without the verification. It may be that you have to confirm your age only once and that there will be no second warning for flagged content.

So it was censored?

 

[Sherman Bay]

Yes, YouTube has entirely too much Gore. Warning: graphic and disturbing for some.

 

[Oliver]

So it was censored?

If there is only one warning during a session on their sites, there was at least one warning, but no real censorship given the fact that every child can click the "age verification button".

 

[JFrankA]

I post some very R rated (sexual) movies on my youtube account that are outtakes of the porno movies I produce. A couple of them are flagged as "age inappropriate". *shrugs* That's fine by me.

I still say, though, that people will watch what they want to watch - for whatever reason they choose. If a person chosses to watch someone really getting beat up then that's their choice. How they react to it tells you something about the viewer.

But getting back to the topic, I think what you're saying, Oliver, is that there is so much noise from ... uhm..."Moral Groups", we shall call them.... over sexual movies, yet not one peep from movies that show actual violence.

I don't consider an autopsy, violent, though. It's not something I'd want to see, but it's something that is done for health, science and investigative reasons and there is no suffereing going on. But if there is a video of someone actually causing violence on another and it is not flagged, but a video of someone having an orgasm is flagged, then I would agree that there is a double standard here.

By the way, there are TONS of videos on youtube of people who are high or drunk. And some of them are under eighteen.




....no, I didn't look for that, I stumbled on them and I didn't watch them.....

If there is only one warning during a session on their sites, there was at least one warning, but no real censorship given the fact that every child can click the "age verification button".

Sorry, I don't think they should be censored. I think the warning is enough.

 

[Pardalis]

So Oliver, you get into a hissy fit because this board censors the words **** and ****, and you want the US to police the web like China does?

 

[Oliver]

I post some very R rated (sexual) movies on my youtube account that are outtakes of the porno movies I produce. A couple of them are flagged as "age inappropriate". *shrugs* That's fine by me.

I still say, though, that people will watch what they want to watch - for whatever reason they choose. If a person chosses to watch someone really getting beat up then that's their choice. How they react to it tells you something about the viewer.

But getting back to the topic, I think what you're saying, Oliver, is that there is so much noise from ... uhm..."Moral Groups", we shall call them.... over sexual movies, yet not one peep from movies that show actual violence.

I don't consider an autopsy, violent, though. It's not something I'd want to see, but it's something that is done for health, science and investigative reasons and there is no suffereing going on. But if there is a video of someone actually causing violence on another and it is not flagged, but a video of someone having an orgasm is flagged, then I would agree that there is a double standard here.

By the way, there are TONS of videos on youtube of people who are high or drunk. And some of them are under eighteen.

....no, I didn't look for that, I stumbled on them and I didn't watch them.....

Sorry, I don't think they should be censored. I think the warning is enough.

Strange enough, but sexual content doesn't strike me as offending or disturbing as violence or very graphic images of death. But I assume that's partly due to an at least somewhat different culture and/or upbringing.

Should those extreme videos be completely censored? I don't have children myself, but I tend to think that kids should be protected due to the psychological impact of disturbing footage. The system in place isn't really a protection from that point of view.

So I assume this will be a huge political issue some day anyway.

 

[Oliver]

So Oliver, you get into a hissy fit because this board censors the words **** and ****, and you want the US to police the web like China does?

No, I don't. Youtube could just uphold the very guidelines they already have in place for such content. I was merely wondering that such content still exist given the quite usual resistance from religious and parental groups.

It seems that Youtube simply didn't get their ass spanked from those groups yet, otherwise there wouldn't be such videos for months and years without deletion. Or they just don't give a hoot about their own guidelines - who knows?

 

[Pardalis]

The system in place isn't really a protection from that point of view.

What would be a good "system"?

No, I don't. Youtube could just uphold the very guidelines they already have in place for such content.

So the problem is with Youtube, a private company, not upholding its guidelines.

I was merely wondering that such content still exist given the quite usual resistance from religious and parental groups.

It seems that Youtube simply didn't get their ass spanked from those groups yet

Why is it up for these pressure groups to hold Youtube accountable?

You criticize those very same groups for being too uptight, and now you want them to do it more?

Can't you do it yourself? You can write a letter can you? You can form or join a group yourself, and work to make sure Youtube respects its guidelines. Or maybe you just want the religious groups to do it for you?

 

[Oliver]

What would be a good "system"?

So the problem is with Youtube, a private company, not upholding its guidelines.

Why is it up for these pressure groups to hold Youtube accountable?

You criticize those very same groups for being too uptight, and now you want them to do it more?

Can't you do it yourself? You can write a letter can you? You can form or join a group yourself, and work to make sure Youtube respects its guidelines. Or maybe you just want the religious groups to do it for you?

A perfect system would check all videos before publishing them, a good system would implement two lines of code that auto-transfers newly uploaded content that has words in it that aren't conform with the guidelines to a separate place for review.

I also wouldn't say that "I have a problem", but I'm curious about the obvious lack of intervention by those groups. As you pointed out, the stuff those groups usually care about, is rather laughable in contrast to the type of content we are talking about in here - or don't you mind about that kind of footage at all?

Well, I will flag those videos when I stumble over it, but I won't go and search for those videos because it makes me sick to see too much of that stuff.

And I'm not going to join another religion, the roman catholic church was crazy enough for a whole lifetime.

 

[JFrankA]

Strange enough, but sexual content doesn't strike me as offending or disturbing as violence or very graphic images of death. But I assume that's partly due to an at least somewhat different culture and/or upbringing.

Should those extreme videos be completely censored? I don't have children myself, but I tend to think that kids should be protected due to the psychological impact of disturbing footage. The system in place isn't really a protection from that point of view.

So I assume this will be a huge political issue some day anyway.

But here's the problem: you may not see sexual content as offending or disturbing as violence or very graphic images of death, but others do. And vice versa.

Others wouldn't mind letting their children see graphic images of violence or death, and actually, many children do everyday. The arguement could be that violence and death, like sex, is just part of being human and the child will have to be faced with it someday.

Where's the line? Who gets to decide it?

Look, I understand where you're coming from. I don't like violent images either. I have children. I tell you I'd much rather have them see a sexual image rather than a violent one. But it's not the image that's the problem. The problem is how the child and the parents react to the image.

You can't censor graphic violent images any more than you can censor graphic sexual images. People, (including children) are too diverse. What it all boils down to is the viewer's choice and the producer's sense of, for lack of a better word, good taste.

For example, I choose not to have my porn shown on youtube, simply because I understand it's not made for that. But I can show R rated clips, and I do that understanding that there should be a warning so that whomever is viewing the clip will understand what they are getting into.

From there, it's the viewer's choice. How a person, no matter the age reacts, and how others react to that reaction is their choice, their responsiblity, not mine.

 

[Big Les]

WTF? Sorry

 

[Big Les]

Stupid forum!

 

[Big Les]

I would see autopsy videos as educational and wholly different in character to "violent" imagery. As long as the face isn't readily identifiable to loved ones.

*goes off to find some*

PS - OP, don't whatever you do search for "Dissected-Chan".

 

[gtc]

PS - OP, don't whatever you do search for "Dissected-Chan".

Why?

 

[Oliver]

Why?

I tried - and there was no result for that search-term...

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Should those extreme videos be completely censored? I don't have children myself, but I tend to think that kids should be protected due to the psychological impact of disturbing footage. The system in place isn't really a protection from that point of view.

As Maddox says "if my site offends people, they should not read it. It's not my job to be your children's guardian."

 

[Oliver]

As Maddox says "if my site offends people, they should not read it. It's not my job to be your children's guardian."

While I tend to agree with you and Maddox here, unfortunately Youtube aims at a young audience - plus they have the necessary guidelines to protect the audience in question. The problem is that no one seem's to care - which came as a surprise for me since I'm used to see more fuss about relatively harmless stuff and non-issues. That's pretty much my point of surprise and why I asked in the first place.

 

[JFrankA]

While I tend to agree with you and Maddox here, unfortunately Youtube aims at a young audience - plus they have the necessary guidelines to protect the audience in question. The problem is that no one seem's to care - which came as a surprise for me since I'm used to see more fuss about relatively harmless stuff and non-issues. That's pretty much my point of surprise and why I asked in the first place.

I don't think youtube aims at a young audience, I think it just seems to draw a young audience, just as any new technologies always do. I read an article a long time ago about the origins of YouTube and basically they just wanted to host streaming video. Not anything for one specific group.

 

[Pardalis]

So Oliver, if the US government released the pictures of OBL's destroyed skull, with his brains squirting out of his eye socket (a US senator's description), would you want it to be censored?

Wouldn't it be a little bit too harsh for a young audience?