We all should know by now that YouTube has its "strange" side.
Why does YouTube allow videos, such as snuff films, to be uploaded to their servers? Yeah, some of the videos are age-restricted, but those videos shouldn't be there in the first place, right?
I just watched a video -- for some reason -- of a young lad who almost split his head into two by jumping off a ledge. There wasn't any censorship, no age-restriction, no warning for younger viewers...nothing, just the "as-is" content.
I'm not squeamish about graphic content of videos, but it's not really fair on the children browsing YouTube that know no better.
Do you condone such videos, even when they are age-restricted, to be uploaded to the internet?
Every one is going to talk about how you should be free to share whatever videos
I remember when everyone was watching that guy have his head cut off, I couldn't stand the idea of it being watched on my screen in my house, Its not that im "squeamish" is the principle, we don't watch public executions in the 21st century, and everyone wanted to see it and made excuses, it was entertainment no matter how they justify it.
terrorists will never get taken as seriously as they would like by normal people at least
I doubt YouTube has the staff needed to police every video that gets uploaded everyday and just like it is here, there is a report feature to bring this kind of thing to the attention of the staff that they do have. In the end it should be up to the parents to audit what their kids are watching at ALL times (this is coming from a parent by the way) since the kids will just lie about their age anyway.
Keep in mind that that kid is enjoying the hell out of his fifteen minutes of fame right now. Other kids at his school are watching the video and commenting on the post while they ask him in real life "what was it like?" and he plays down the injury to seem like a tough guy.
Nothing should be censored. Children will be exposed to violence, sex and gore - simulated or otherwise - anyway, and if you don't want your children exposed to it then you should take responsibility for supervising them rather than using the TV or computer as a sort of inanimate babysitter. I'm dumbfounded by parents who leave their kids in front of the TV or on the Internet with absolutely no supervision and then complain when their kids see things that they (that is, the parents) consider inappropriate. It's pathetic. I don't agree with any kind of public censorship of public media for any reason. What I do agree with is tools that allow parents to restrict their children's viewing, without affecting everyone else. As for age-restriction and warnings, those sorts of things rarely work. Video game and DVD age ratings I do agree with - I think it's an excellent system, because the aim isn't simply to stop underage children from being exposed, but rather to leave the decision in the hands of their parents. But on the Internet, there's no way to effectively do it; instead they resort to "Viewers must be 18 or over, please enter your date of birth", which any kid with half a brain will quickly learn to deceive. Simple warnings are counter-effective because they encourage children to watch them (when I was a child, if I saw something saying "Do not watch this if you are under 18" I was far more likely to watch it). Again, the missing element here is not censorship but supervision.
That video is less cute when you imagine a frantic rodent or bird in place of the blue wand thing.
My thing has always been if kids can't do or watch it then you should'nt(with only a few exemptions like sex after marriage) That would take the whole problem out alltogether but i know that will never happen