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
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.