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.
YouTube bans knife and gun videos
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.
it's to stop idiots posting stuff showing them knifing people/things and rob them of their 15 minutes of fame. i totally agree with it. the internet is NOT a ticket to do as you please.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
What about videos describing how to cut food properly? Are they going to ban all the videos that teach you how to cook too? Maybe TV shows or movies/trailers with violence in them? Yep, it's those darn youtube videos that are really causing all the violence.
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
Videos of weapons are banned but pedophilia and children exploitation is OK:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqIPFTF7JeY
I remember hearing about this on BBC's radio4...
A quick search later found this article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7421534.stm
According to the British Crime Survey (BCS), overall violent crime has decreased by 41% since a peak in 1995.
Knives are used in about 8% of violent incidents, according to the BCS, a level that has largely remained the same during the past decade.
However:
But the BCS figures do not include under-16s, something which the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith announced this month would change.
They thought it was unfair how the few people who actually read the articles have a huge advantage in discussing them, so they decided to level the playing field.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
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
I must admit, these trollish little first posts do make good place holders.
TFA should probably be http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7621013.stm. Interestingly enough, it makes use of the increasingly ubiquitous "vet".
What's the value of information that you don't know?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEoiu2Coxrc or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IHQqW8zOSk
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Is it common to disallow fictional work, such as movies, that have guns or knives used as intimidation? YouTube is a common place for budding movie producers to show short films, too. But if this kind of thing is censored in UK, then I guess YouTube doing it is going along with the flow.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
That's the actual article, it's protecting society through ignorance.
Om, nomnomnom...
...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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They can just replace them with walkie-talkies.
Right?
RIGHT?!?
Why do I M2 everything negatively?
'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.
First it's guns,
then it's knives,
then it's drunken louts with their angry fists,
then it's "unsavoury behaviour" in the street,
then it's public demonstrations/rallies,
then it's any dissent at all.
All for the good of the people, of course.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
They do provide a service on the 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.
I'll happily stick to America, where I can legally defend myself with the pistol in my pocket.
And unfortunately, you might need to, since every criminal on every American street knows where to get a gun on the black market, with no background check or paper trail. If we didn't have so many handguns, we might not need so many handguns. (Hunting weapons and military rifles are a different story, and I won't go there - handguns are the real danger.)
Because bans on things like drugs and, in the past, alcohol worked so well, didn't it? Those mentioned criminals are breaking several laws acquiring those guns. All the paper trail and background check requirements did exactly what to stop that? It seems, correct me if I'm wrong, that you seem to be advocating more of the same ineffective regulations and laws. Thus, the law abiding will be disarmed, or hampered, and the criminal element will simply laugh and carry on business as usual. See Chicago, NYC, and Washington, D.C. as examples. If you want international examples, see Russia with an almost total ban on handguns. Yet, they have sky high rates of crime and in particular murder.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
The link in the article leads to a Slashdot 404. Wtf
The link is this
What a noodle-spined move on the part of Google! If only UN language were so effective on the rogue nations of the world!
"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," said Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, who has also stated that police should restrict photography by citizens. Indeed, why not suppress free speech in in all ways in Britain and in the rest of the world, you dunce? It would certainly decrease violence!
The hysterical myths about computer game violence have in many cases been debunked, as recently discussed, and why are YouTube videos any different? Movies, games and books which incite dissent are next on the worldwide chopping block, folks! To see Google assume the position on this debate, which includes no specific legislation, is a grim forecast on government intervening in our daily lives with their friendly companies on Politically Correct leashes opening our bedroom doors for them.
The cheeky bastards.
FairTax baby!
Knife crime has not increased in the UK.
Reporting of knife crime in the UK has increased dramatically. It just happens to be what the papers happen to be focusing on this year. Last year it was the McCann thing. A few years ago it was the great paedophile threat, which came about due to one or two high-profile cases featuring photogenic young girls. Before that it was ... thankfully I can't remember.
Anyway, the papers finally decided they needed new "fear" stories to run and grab headlines with. Knife crime appears to be the one they're rallied around this time.
You are still much, much more likely to die in a car accident than to be stabbed to death by a "teenage yob". Doesn't make good headlines though or instill the same level of fear though, does it?
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
The BBC should use 'vet' because it's been in common usage in the UK for the last 100 years.
This 'new' word is only new to the US.
The main problem within the UK is that over the last few decades we have decided that we have rights rather than understand that responsibilities go with those rights. We have always had a "thug" (or gang) culture somewhere in our society, but we have never had the leadership to sort out these problems directly, instead we blame ethic minorities, drugs, gambling and any other area of perceived illegal activity, all of which are indirectly related to thug culture. However, we never appear to properly examine the problem because we are too quick to blame and not to understand.
I have a very good example. I was involved in a serious car accident on Friday, quite frankly I should not be here, yet alone sitting at the computer uninjured. The accident was caused by the car I was travelling in (being driven by my future father in-law) was side-swiped by a left hand drive Portuguese lorry trying to more into the middle lane of the motorway, without realising that we were there. The car spun, hit the soft embankment, rolled twice and dug itself in upright on all four wheels.
There is a known problem with these lorries in that they have a massive blind spot. Unfortunately, knowing our xenophobic press, if the actually bother to do their research as this problem is quite serious, they would seek to ban every foreign lorry on British roads, even though Irish lorries are Right Hand Drive and British and Irish lorries cold potentially have the same blind stop when driven in Continental Europe, as they drive on the right instead of the left.
I myself don't blame the lorry driver in so much that he was doing his job. I do feel that the company that hired the lorry and haulier hold responsibility for attempting to cut costs.
For want of a better expression, there is technology in a £30 mobile phone (i.e. camera and screen) that could be used as an effective blind spot mirror. In addition, many cars today have reversing sensors that could be employed to warn lorry drivers that the lane next to them is not clear.
Now what has this got to do with knife crime? not a lot you would think? Well actually it has. Sadly you are more likely to die at the hands of a car than a knife in the UK. On that level will You Tube be banning the viewing of any car on their website? Of course not. Cars (and I suppose lorries) can be used to kill and so can knives, but then knives are even more vital to society than cars; you can't cut your food without a knife, but you can walk instead of drive.
So, when are we answer the question properly - Why do people wish to carry knives for self defence?
You mean for offtopic karma-whoring posts that aren't related to the FP at all?
Yes.
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.
But they don't provide internet service, which is the normal way of using that term.
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
Mod parent up. True English has uses 'vet' in common speech all the time.
Typos aside (always understandable), is the issue here that Uvajed's post thought it interesting that the primary British news source used "vet" in the primary English-language manner?
Fascinating that it's become ubiquitous enough that it's normal use, by a source most likely to use it so, can be considered interesting. Considering BBC being a reputable news agency, I don't see any other way it really could be used. They'd certainly not use it as an abbreviation.
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.
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.
It's been in common usage in American English for at least as long as I've been alive as well.
Maybe the meaning is slightly different, we would vet people for corporate positions, but we sometimes vet software for suitability in a process. Either way it's a try before you buy idea, rather than a definitive selection.
Vet is a perfectly cromulent word. A word I loathe more, is "tap", which is increasingly a slang for sex, and also choosing someone to a position. One could say "McCain tapped Palin for VP position", and not be sure if we need to reread the Kama Sutra, if he was merely physically getting her attention or if she was being chosen for a job.
Well let me respond, being a professional lorry driver.
Here's a fact - it's just as bad in a right hand drive in the UK. And the only time it's dangerous, is when a car drives at the same speed while along side instead of overtaking properly. Add to this the normal car drivers habit of driving right up close to the back of the trailer before suddenly swinging out to overtake. One minute your mirrors are clear and you can see about 5 or six cars at varying distances behind you. You gauge the time is right, check your mirrors again and find a car level with the back of the cab about 2 feet away from your wheels and 5 feet below your head.
WTF did they come from ? You have to make obvious moves when you drive any size vehicle, dithering just confuses people. If you're passing me, pull out a way back so I can see you, then GET ON WITH IT. I can see you, I'm catching a slower vehicle so I'll wait until you've gone before I move out. But you just glide by doing 2mph faster than me and I'm only doing 55mph !
So next time you pass a truck, make sure you catch the drivers eye in his mirror before you go past, which means pulling out in plenty of time. And if you don't get it over with immediately, you may expect him to pull out, coz he ain't slowing down for you. You don't realise the grief you cause when you force a truck to brake on the motorway. It has a 0-55 time of about 1 minute fully loaded, and braking hard from 55 brings you down to 30 or 40, which is a bitch and maybe 4 gears to crawl up from.
At the end of the day, I have 3 big mirrors each side of the cab and if I can't see you in them, you aren't there. Keep your car where the mirrors can see you.
Quentin bloody Wilson did a shock horror story on TV about this very issue, and he was shitting himself driving the truck. Not exactly objective. These people don't realise how many lives are saved every day by NOT hitting dumb drivers. That sounds very grand, but the dumb drivers involved usually don't even realise they've just avoided death due to there being a decent driver in the truck they just cut up.
I resent being seen as an obstruction, and then deliberately held up, by the same driver. Everybody want to be in front of everybody else even though the road's packed. When the rush hour starts it's like a load of rats suddenly infest the streets, filling every available space. You can't drive like that and just expect other vehicles to deal with it. Adding technology to the wrong vehicle won't improve manners on the road. Address the real issue - driving skills.
</rant>
I've heard that quite a few times, but I've not seen anything that supports it.