Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Relonar, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 9:26pm

   
   

   All violence on the internet must be stopped! Think of the children and what they are learning through youtube. We could stop all bullying and violence in schools if the children weren't exposed to it on the internet. As long as these videos of guns, violence, and terrorism exist children will come to repeat these heinous acts in the schools.
   
   I'm sorry 'bout that. I believe that, yes, there should be some limits (if the limits do not infringe on the established rights of the individual in the land that governs them), but I also believe that these limits should fall to the hands of government to enforce (China seems to have a pretty good grasp on this concept, or so I've been told). Asking the owner of the platform to police and filter seems like just another way to hide and obscure censorship.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   JLE, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 9:35pm

   
   

   Then cartoons should be banned as well.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   takeit, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 9:45pm

   
   

   oh yea?

   liberman doinks the king of thailand in london and makes the queen of england's kids watch at gun point .

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   Me, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 10:11pm

   
   

   Re: oh yea?

   Hahaha!!!! Nice, prob true as well!!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   RP, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 10:12pm

   
   

   Grammar Nazi

   Thailand's government to ban videos ***critical of that made fun of*** the country's king. But, now the pace is ramping up
   
   Opps :D Hate it when I do that

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Mike (profile), Sep 17th, 2008 @ 10:45pm

   
   

   Re: Grammar Nazi

   Oops. Fixed. Thanks!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   DFunny990, Sep 17th, 2008 @ 11:46pm

   
   

   UMmmm

   First Ammendment??

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Rory, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 12:22am

   
   

   Re:

   What utter tosh. Lets ban everything because it all can potentially influence you to shoot your fellow man.
   
   Only legitimate cause of violence is the physical punishment of kids by their parents and this is because of people's inability to disciple appropriately through verbal reasoning/non-violent techniques.
   
   This, of course, requires intelligence.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   Allen (profile), Sep 18th, 2008 @ 12:34am

   
   

   Re: UMmmm

   No.
   
   I think that you will find that the First Amendment limits the power of the various branches of US government from creating laws that inhibit/prevent free speech.
   
   Google caving to some US Senator's request is wrong, but I dont think it's a constitutional issue.
   
   The UK government is certainly going overboard in making these requests, but last time I checked the UK was not one of the 52 states to which the [US] first amendment applies.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    KC, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 1:18am

    
    

    Re: oh yea?

    Youtube has now banned making fun of Lie-berman doinking the king of Thailand, and making aforementioned British aristocracy watch

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    jFive NYC, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 1:20am

    
    

    You people need to read and understand the First Amendment before post what you think it means. Fudge Lieberman and YouTube for caving in to goverment pressure on running their PRIVATE business. I'm sure Google just didn't want another legal fiasco on their hands. That said, unlike sex which this country loves to censor, thank you very much Jerry Falwell. Violence can be avoided. Try taking it off YouTube instead of the television? Your focus is in the wrong problem. Try blaming the parents for not blocking sites, etc or for not doing their damn job as parents.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    xhi, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 1:55am

    
    

    I'm waiting for somebody to do the intimidation Challenge... Start off by intimidating people with knives and uploading it to youtube.. and progressivly move towards cuddly bears traversing through other objects such as scissors.. bottles.. broken bits of electronics.. large library books.. etc... The aim?.. to get the video banned. I'm pretty sure you could get banned for many innocuous objects :D

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Blatant Coward, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 2:02am

    
    

    Ok then in that case we'll need every copy of every movie ever made with a weapon in it confiscated by RIAA, even though they should have no power in England-from every citizen. They are used to being stoopid, and writing their own laws in bulk lots so they should be up to the task.
    
    I believe the proper phrase here is "What utter knee biters." Sorry if Knee biters is one word.
    
    George Lucas can re release all privately made movies with walkie talkies replaced in them that any citizens may want back for a "slight" retconning fee.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Zaphod, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 2:08am

    
    

    I wonder if anyone will step in after this PR debacle?

    Seems to me with YouTube losing it's vim and vigor as a sounding board, it's time for a new startup to move in.
    
    Honestly, YouTube is beginning to seem more like TheirTube the way they are caving as of late (and getting in bed with DRM companies).
    
    And this time, I think the new x-tube provider should remain somewhat unknown, and not sell out. Make it very clear that anything uploaded to their service is the user's responsibility, and all actions, including takedown, are up to the user (safe harbor).
    
    It would also be nice to see the video available in non-proprietary standards (MP4/AAC), for instance where you have to download them through a java applet that displays ads during (and only during) the download to offset the cost of the bandwidth and protect the source (encryption/decryption).
    
    But these are pipe-dreams, no one would be that smart.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    JL, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 3:24am

    
    

    what a relief....

    Youtube was the last place that still showed people intimidating others with weapons, after we where able to ban the daily, incessant bombardment of violence from television.
    
    Right?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    Hyrulio, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 4:22am

    
    

    They'll ban videos of people talking next, incase it offends anyone.
    
    Then videos with music, incase any copyrights are broken, or the songs used offend people.
    
    Then 'HowTo' videos, incase anybody is offended by being told what to do.
    
    Eventually there will be no videos left. Then the terrorists win?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    Haywood, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 4:44am

    
    

    Re: Re:

    "Only legitimate cause of violence is the physical punishment of kids by their parents and this is because of people's inability to disciple appropriately through verbal reasoning/non-violent techniques.
    
    This, of course, requires intelligence."
    
    So you must be one of those people I see reasoning with a 2 year old, that's intelligent.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Relonar, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 5:12am

    
    

    Re:

    Ever hear of content filtering??? maybe spend some time With your kids and they would not want to go to youtube and watch a kid shoot at stick figures of his mom and dad.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 6:08am

    
    

    Re:

    If you admire so much Chinese censorship, you're invited to move to China. I prefer having violent kids around than repressive governments and corporations.
    
    Let me go out on a limb and infer from what you're saying that you're 40+ or 50+ years old and/or ultra-religious (fundamentalist) christian... the Sarah Palin type of person. The large majority of the younger and/or educated population will be able to tell you that blaming gaming for school violence is just moral panic. If you don't believe me, I hope that you believe the Pew Research Center: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080917-the-kids-are-all-right-gamers-well-adjusted-civic-mind ed.html
    
    Banning content is a very slippery slope because what could seem to be sensible objections towards certain materials will rapidly turn into banning stuff just because someone doesn't agree with it or doesn't want it to be exposed to public scrutiny. For example, if you think that restricting access to public information is the way to go (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080918-federal-lawsuits-take-on-the-humble-hyperlink.html), then I feel obliged to disagree with you.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 6:27am

    
    

    Hmmm. I wonder if this might get Google to block vids of police abuses. After all, we wouldn't want to give anyone the idea that weapons could be used to indimidate...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    nasch, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 8:30am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    So you must be one of those people I see reasoning with a 2 year old, that's intelligent.
    
    I'm not sure where you're going with that. Are you suggesting that 2 year olds cannot be reasoned with? Because I assure you that they can.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Haywood, Sep 18th, 2008 @ 10:51am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "I'm not sure where you're going with that. Are you suggesting that 2 year olds cannot be reasoned with? Because I assure you that they can."
    
    Yeah,,, right!
    
    I have experience, with that, and while you may feel a sense of accomplishment, the child will be less than impressed.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Allen (profile), Sep 18th, 2008 @ 9:53pm

    
    

    Re: Re: UMmmm

    UMmmm that should probably be "50 states" :blush:

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Charlie, Sep 20th, 2008 @ 7:28am

    
    

    censorship sucks

    If your gonna ban anything that might be considered disturbing or offensive to other people then you might as well ban anything that could be considered, alliliated, or associated with imagination.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Anonymous, Oct 20th, 2008 @ 8:16pm

    
    

    Youtube censors videos critical of the church of scientology

    Videos and clips that are not infringing and clearly fair use are being arbitrarily removed by youtube staff for tos and dcma violations and are next to impossible to get put back. It seems that youtube needs to grow a pair and stop playing the censor board and start playing fair.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Pussywillow, Dec 16th, 2008 @ 3:16pm

    
    

    The Internet Causes Bullies?

    Wrong. Humannature causes bullies. There were bullies in school long before the Intardweb, before computers, before the discovery of electricity... It is a predatory nature & a fear & distrust of others - perceived as different or weaker - that is the issue. Banning video content doesn't prevent someone from being a worthless, walking pile of detritus. They will simply go elsewhere. I doubt that the genocidal maniacs who murdered inRwanda got the urge from watching YouTube video clips.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    Relonar, Feb 5th, 2009 @ 9:20pm

    
    

    Re:

    It seems my horrible structuring has gotten he better of me on that post and obscured my true thoughts
    
    for the record to show:
    The first paragraph was complete sarcasm
    
    As for the second...rereading it, haven't a clue today where I was going with that.
    
    I certainly do not think that these types of censorships are a good thing.
    
    The reference to China was supposed to point out an instance where I believe censorship has been taken way too far, but it seems I missed a key step in the logic when writing that post.
    
    The final sentence stands as is.
    
    I should have really proofed that before posting...I certainly see how vaguely and misrepresented my ideas were in that comment
    I hope that I didn't get too much scorn from the community on that one.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment