Comments on: Google YouTube workers as Net censors http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579 p2pnet.net - reader powered Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Thinker http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579/comment-page-1#comment-660972 Thinker Sun, 03 Aug 2008 12:14:20 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579#comment-660972 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. 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.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579/comment-page-1#comment-660825 Reader's Write Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:01:58 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579#comment-660825 At least they're taking some responsibility for their own site. Can't be easy with millions of files. At least they’re taking some responsibility for their own site. Can’t be easy with millions of files.

]]> By: Eric http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579/comment-page-1#comment-655944 Eric Fri, 01 Aug 2008 20:50:13 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579#comment-655944 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. 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.

]]> By: Rekrul http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579/comment-page-1#comment-655429 Rekrul Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:05:02 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16579#comment-655429 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? 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?

]]>