Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Bans Gun and Knife Videos In the UK
PatPending writes with a depressing excerpt from the UK's Metro: "The Google-owned video-sharing site YouTube has decided to introduce the ban [on weapons-related videos] for the UK only amid widespread unease about the increase in knife crime in the country. 'We recognise that there has been particular concern over videos in the UK that involve showing weapons with the aim of intimidation, and this is one of the areas we are addressing,' a YouTube spokesperson said. 'I would like to see other internet service providers follow suit to reinforce our message that violence will not be tolerated either on the internet or in the real world,' she said."
Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.
You know, I'm a bit torn here.
I think it's really oppressive when governments do things like telling a company that they'd have to do something like this (which the government did *not* do)... But it's almost scarier that they're doing it on their own initiative as a company. It's like one of those many situations in which someone will self-regulate to a stronger degree than is necessary just to present the appearance that outside regulation is not necessary. I certainly believe that Google/YouTube has the right to do this, but not necessarily that they should. So is it better that this came from within rather than from external forces?
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation.
VIDEO of weapons scares them? Do they ban Schwarzenegger movies too?
Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
pure idiocy.
no one seems to realize that there is no such thing as "gun" or "knife" crime. there is crime, and the most convenient tool to carry it out with for threatening people and causing harm. where guns are available this is the tool, where guns are not it's knives or bludgeoning implements.
'knife crime' is going up because that's what is available.
i've gotten a hell of a lot of decent information about my firearm from youtube (if you keep it to videos featuring nationally recognized figures you can't get steered too wrong, like todd jarett).
this is just a plain stupid move on youtube's part.
Isn't it obvious what the real problem is? These videos implicitly question the effectiveness of the UK police state and are, thus, are doubleplusbad. After all, it makes no sense to have the telescreen speaking ill of big brother now does it?
I implore those who question the usefulness of the second amendment here in the U.S. to take a hard look at what's happening in the U.K. today. The slippery slope is very real.
-Grym
...and YouTube becomes a much less interesting place. All you'll have left is a bunch of gossip videos by teens (oh wait those could be controvertial too) and a bunch of gaming video captures (isn't that controvertial too given the copyright issue over the game content). Well we can always just show people at Sunday school (oh no we can't - what's more controvertial than religion).
Seriously all this is is pandering. YouTube knows that most interesting content has a controversial element and that almost anything could be offensive to someone. It's just those who shout loudest that are too big a pain in the behind to bother butting heads with so they comply with these demands. (Ah the irony of giving in to terrorism, when the subject is weapons and violence).
The sensible and sane way to deal with this is simply to remove videos that contain illegal content (and bring themt to the attention of the authorities). Wouldn't most of the offending videos with guns and knives be in some way illegal? If not they should wait for the law to be modified.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Well, I don't like your tone.
Get off my internet.
I'm afraid that you are talking crap.
There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when trying to obtain guns, but you didn't. Violent crime, particularly armed violent crime, is on the increase and those that commit it will use whatever weapon they can find. That doesn't justify making guns more readily available. Incidentaly, firearms are also being used increasingly in the UK by criminals but at a much lower level than, say, in the USA where such weapons are more readily available.
And finally, for those outside the UK who don't keep abreast of developments but who like to make statements based upon their imperfect knowledge of other countries, you need to be aware that there are armed police in the UK. Some people actually think that there are too many of them. But the UK does not find it necessary to arm all of the policemen all of the time
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
If you actually read the blog post you linked, you would find that 'vet' "has been used in Britain since the early years of the 20th century". Actually we use it more widely than the screening of a candidate for public office: I consider it a straight synonym for 'screen' in the sense of investigation and filtering. The BBC usage of vetting videos is one example; another would be the vetting of people who work in a security-conscious environment.
No, corporations should make money. They shouldn't be (by themselves) responsible to other "communities" than to their shareholders. The reason is that making money is why they do exist; to behave differently is expecting them to behave irrationally.
That's a narrow view. First of all, if the company isn't publicly traded, then its job is to do whatever the owners want, which is frequently more complex than "make as much money as possible". So if we're talking about publicly traded companies, wouldn't companies benefit from positive public opinion? The company's job isn't just to make money this year--it's to seek long term profitability, and that may involve "being responsible".
On another note, these companies, even the public ones, are run by their officers. Those officers are people with principles, whatever they be, and I would hope that these people follow their principles, as well as do their best to lead their company to success.
A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
I'd be surprised if many of them are even aware that uk.youtube.com exists - most people I come across seem to believe that every URL has to begin with "www.", so they don't automatically think they need to add "uk." to the start of "youtube.com"
But they don't provide internet service
With all that fibre they own across the country surely they don't have an ISP. Therefore they are an ISP to their employees :P
the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.
True.
And if those videos commit a real crime (as in, an actual murder rather than some twit mangling a perfectly good side of beef), they at least provide evidence to use against the attacker.
If not? Well, I fail to see the problem with some twit mangling a side of beef, as long as he owns it.
-1 lame idea. Enjoy your Orwellian society.
Yeah, you're right there. Anecdotal evidence is always more reliable than the results of organised surveys.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
People who anthropomorphize inanimate objects are seriously delusional. The UK bans private ownership of guns. Criminals don't give a rusty f*ck. It's just another law to break. Now it's about knives. When are these people going to learn that a piece of paper with a bunch of flowery latin written on it doesn't stop crime. It's like a cop holding up his badge saying "Stop, thief!" and expecting them to actually stop. "Stop! Or I'll yell 'Stop!' again!" Oy.