Google YouTube workers as Net censors
p2pnet news view | Freedom:- Google employees should, in effect, be online censors, deciding which videos are fit for public viewing on its YouTube, and which aren’t, says Britain’s House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport.
The committee is “unimpressed” with YouTube’s existing systems for policing video clips, says The Telegraph, quoting chairman John Whittingdale as saying the firm, and others which host “user-generated content,” should do more to filter submissions.
“Proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content,” the committee says, according to the story, which goes on MPs say the Net has a dark side where, “hardcore pornography and videos of fights, bullying and even rape can be found, as well as websites promoting eating disorder, self-harm and suicide”.
The committee wants an industry self-regulation body to, “agree and police minimum standards for protection of internet users from potentially harmful content,” it says.
But it, “stops short of calling for statutory regulation, arguing that its effectiveness would be limited as so many sites are based overseas,” says The Telegraph, adding:
“Mr Whittingdale, the committee chairman said: ‘We did find that paedophiles are going on second life and meeting and simulating sex with children. It was the view of Jim Gamble [head of the police Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre that monitors the internet] that someone who gets pleasure from simulated sex in second life is someone who is likely to engage child sex in real life.”
“The Ministry of Justice has said it is considering new laws covering the activities of people in virtual worlds.”
But, “what about the so-called freedom of the internet?” – asks Amanda Andrews in Times Online.
“Will this be lost forever, with every clip that is uploaded to be examined by a corporation or government employee? If videos go through a strict vetting process, then surely the same process should be applied to the world of blogs, many of which are also looked at by impressionable young people.”
She adds:
“While there are some measures that need to be taken by social networks, surely the real job is for parents to monitor their children’s surfing habits.”
.
.Stumble It!
The Telegraph – YouTube attacked by MPs over sex and violence footage, July 31, 2008
Times Online -YouTube gang rape scenes deleted in attempt to police the dark side of digital, August 1, 2008
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:05 am
It always astounds me that every single internet company appears to think that in order to “do business” in another country, they have to have servers and/or offices there, which makes them legally obligated to follow that country’s laws.
Isn’t the internet a GLOBAL network? I can easily access the BBC web site, even though they don’t have servers here in the US, so why can’t people in the UK access YouTube/Google servers in the US? Run the servers in your own damn country and tell other countries to go screw themselves when they decide they need to pass new laws to restrict your business. Is that so hard to understand?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
YouTube is already very biased about which clips it removes. I know many people who have put legitimate content on it only to have it taken down without explanation.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:01 am
At least they’re taking some responsibility for their own site. Can’t be easy with millions of files.
August 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 am
In addition to legal issues, there is a quality issue.
Any business to survive in the long run must insure that whatever it sell is of an adequate quality.
Sometimes it amazes me how much real crap is presented on YouTube. As a mtter of fact that is a reason why I only view videos of performers I know. And even these are not worthy of showing and only make the performers look bad and have no historical value.
Sure, some of the worthless videos are viewed many times (while great videos are hardly viewed at all). But giving some of the public the crap they may like is not being intelligent, in the long run. as nothing sells like the quality/low price/need combination.
The point being, for YouTube to survive or not being overtaken by a quality conscious competitor, they better filter content.
YouTube surely has the right to filter content just as any business has a right to select and limit what they show and sell.