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."

Comments

'cause everyone knows

[ichbineinneuben]

Guns and knives don't kill people. Videos kill people.

Re:'cause everyone knows

[Anonymous Coward]

But one day, the media suddenly went into a feeding frenzy, police chiefs were trotting out their most ridiculous arrays or seized weapons (including a photo of a Star Trek replica weapon at one point) and Home Secretaries were trying to look all grave and serious talking about the knife epidemic sweeping our nation.

I'm looking forward to the upcoming Brick Epidemic, the following Cobblestone Conundrum, and finally the Pointy-stick Problem.

Before it is all over you English won't be allowed possession of anything harder than mushy peas. I've no idea how you'll manage to cook them or mash them for that matter because anything sufficiently rigid enough to cook them in or mash them with will have been made illegal to possess.

Turing word: disarm
(Sometimes I swear they're added a lexical analyzer.)

Re:'cause everyone knows

[ultranova]

You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!

Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?

Re:'cause everyone knows

[YrWrstNtmr]

Call me some kind of freak or something, but why the fuck would you want to own a gun?

1. I like target shooting
2. I like to collect finely made items
3. I live way the hell out in the country, and coyotes have been taking some of the smaller livestock
4. I like to and it is legal
5. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away

(These may or may not apply to me personally)

The idiots on Youtube? Bust em. They shouldn't be allowed near a squirtgun.
But a firearm in my hands is zero danger to you. You're in more danger from your neighbors car. Unless of course you try to do harm to me and mine.

Are you that paranoid?

Re:'cause everyone knows

[localman]

More guns means less crime in some areas. It means more crime in other areas. Generally speaking I support gun rights, but I wish people who do would admit that in very socially messed up places, giving more people guns does not improve things. If it did, then the gangs in LA would be at peace, right?

Guns as a deterrent depends on people valuing their lives, accepting mortality, but believing they can live longer if they're careful. If you're young enough, tough enough, dumb enough, or your life is shitty enough, that might not be the case, and thus you end up amplifying the mess by giving everyone a license to kill.

Guns don't cause violence, but they don't uniformly solve it either. And in some places they can exasperate it. When gun control people and gun rights people can agree on these facts, maybe a productive discussion can begin.

Cheers.

Re:'cause everyone knows

[bogjobber]

I just have two counterpoints to make.

The first is that correlation does not equal causation. Sure, the US has very liberal firearm laws, but that's not really the most important factor. Take a look at Canada. They have similar gun laws, but a much lower murder rate. Brazil has more restrictive laws, but a much higher murder rate.

The largest factor for these high murder rates is poverty. The US is a very wealthy place but neighborhoods of extreme poverty exist in most cities. Generally speaking wealthy people don't kill each other, poor people do. Passing a law criminalizing guns wouldn't save many lives, fixing the root cause would.

Second, waving a gun at somebody is a crime in the US. You just can't go about brandishing firearms here. I'm not sure why you seem to think that would make it more difficult to catch criminals. In the US having a automatic weapon (usually) doesn't make you a criminal, so they don't need to be caught. They only need to be caught if they actually commit a crime.

Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outside

[compumike]

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.

UK is full of spineless pussies

[Anonymous Coward]

VIDEO of weapons scares them? Do they ban Schwarzenegger movies too?

Re:UK is full of spineless pussies

[rossz]

Uhm, it doesn't matter how much they raise or lower the taxes in California. There will always be a shortfall because non-discretionary spending is set (by law) at something like 103% of the state budget. Idiot people kept voting in mandatory money for their pet projects. 3% here, 5% there, and now we are required to spend more than will be available.

That is what Ahnold meant when he said the budget is inherently broken. Fixing it is proving impossible. No one is willing to cut even one dollar from anything. I'd like to see a (state) Constitutional amendment that penalizes the members of the assembly by not paying them for the periods when we don't have a budget. I think we're up to three months now. A 25% salary cut across the board for all assembly members sounds like a damn good idea. Alternately, we could just lynch a few of the bastards. Either way works for me.

As can be logically concluded...

[Kingrames]

Nobody knows how to use a knife until they first search for it on youtube.

'knife crime?'

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:first post

[pjt33]

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.

Re:Sometimes, self-regulation is scarier than outs

[pla]

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.