Hm... apparently Youtube is not very censored when it comes to violence

[Kyriakos]

Despite being very adaptable to people claiming property rights to close down channels etc, it seems that ultra violent videos are very easily accessible in Youtube. Sometimes they stay even after having millions of views!!!

I did feel a little alarmed by watching a former US politician publicly shooting himself.

Maybe we indeed are way too conditioned by movies, re such violence, but the reality of it still should not imo be as easily presentable on a site which by all means is heavily regulated and part of google, ie a company which actively forces half the web to moderate its content (it cost us the 'Babe thread' as well ).

Now i am not saying we should be shielded from those videos, yet it did surprise me one can find such videos as easily.

 

[Camikaze]

I don't get your point about property rights. It's not inconsistent for Google to take steps to avoid incurring liability for infringing property rights, whilst simultaneously not taking steps to protect people from exposure to violent content.

 

[Kyriakos]

^True. Yet maybe there is some merit not in downright comparing/juxtaposing clear property rights violations to regulating ultra-violent content, but dubious property right reporting with apparent indifference to ultra violent content?

 

[Camikaze]

The overzealousness in the one case is due to fear of incurring civil liability, however, whereas the under-zealousness in the other case is presumably due to there being no issue of legal concern. That is, a company will adopt a laissez-faire attitude where they are at no legal risk, but will adopt a risk-averse attitude when there is something to guard against. Similarly, then, you'd expect Google to be more concerned with publishing defamatory material than violent material, and therefore more concerned with providing mechanisms through which defamatory material can be quickly identified and removed.

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't doubt the above; yet it did strike me as 'interesting' that google is not making much of an attempt to look less than hypocritical when it supposedly takes an active role to deter "unsavory" content (strange that is usually of the sexual nature, and even harmless images we also had in the babe thread ) when it also acts as a main source of getting easily to any video of content up to brutal death and suicide.

 

[warpus]

It's an American company, and the American way is to censor nipples and glorify violence. I mean, just look at the rules for this "family friendly" forum.

You're in Europe, where things are done the other way around. So yeah, it's odd, but after a couple decades you sort of just sigh and go along with it. Nipples bad, decapitated infants good

 

[plarq]

On June 4th, 2019, I watched Tiananmen Incident documentary on pornhub.
Uncommon circumstances require uncommon practices.

 

[Hrothbern]

It's an American company, and the American way is to censor nipples and glorify violence. I mean, just look at the rules for this "family friendly" forum.

You mean censoring female nipples

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh it's another stealth necro.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: Thread closed due to advanced age.