Consequences of YouTube’s new guidelines
Last week , YouTube updated its guidelines by adding 3 simple points as follows:
- Don’t post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making.
- Graphic or gratuitous violence is not allowed. If your video shows someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated, don’t post it.
- YouTube is not a shock site. Don’t post gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and similar things.
Simple, aren’t they? But no one couldn’t predict the consequences of such update .
If you didn’t follow the story from the beginning, please read the following.
About 4 months ago , Senator Joseph Lieberman asked Google inc to block all videos that are posted on YouTube which encourage violence by depicting assassinations, death of US soldiers, as well as weapon training and speeches. YouTube responded after 4 months to these demands. But it seems that their new guidelines were not approved by netizens .
The first and strong reaction by some people was deleting their accounts at YouTube, why? Because they say that this measurement is considered as imposing censorship on their freedom. How they live in the land of liberty and their freedom is taken. They simply left YouTube.
Some others go further to see that these terms are limiting their freedom of speech and thoughts. And they are angry.
Another group acted like explainers, they make the simple terms more difficult by expanding the terms to include any funny videos that people hurt in them or movie trailers that show actions or martial arts….
I think people are sensitive about authority and politics. They didn’t want the action of “Big Brother” and that’s why they are angry although YouTube already uses these rules from the early beginning of their online existence. They already deleted many videos before that were not complied with their terms…but the new change is that they give in to a politician demand and they declare that to the public. A big Mistake.
Yes, it is a big mistake that may cost them their business. And who knows How much YouTube may lose? I noticed that people are going to make a replacement for YouTube . People are searching for another media that make them feel free. If this angry reaction grows, it will drain YouTube from its value. Because what distinguishes Youtube from other video sharing sites is that it is the leading and the most popular site. Now, they give the opportunity to other compititors to cut a huge piece from their market share.
Who can imagine that these simple terms, which already used by YouTube all the time without announcing, will affect them after they post this update. It is a tough test for YouTube. And more consequences may appear in the next days.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.newbornbusiness.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
Loading ...
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
The argument of limitation of freedom does NOT apply to services provided by a private company. A private company can limit posts in any way that they want, it is their right. If they choose to honor a reasonable request from a government official, that does not equate to “big brother” imposing it’s limitations. If people want free speech, they can set up, host, and supply access to their own website and post whatever they want. Until then, they can shut up and enjoy free access to great services that have some very reasonable limitations.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
thanks rojuka for your valuable comment, but it seems that the compliment YouTube did to the Senator will not be free and people are sensitive to such activities. You know, if YouTube announced these new guidelines without saying that they respond to the Senator’s demand, I think people will not be angry or relate these updates to censorship acts or so.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
There’s an argument about public utility which is never considered anymore and of course should be. The reason people own things is because they are allowed to under the laws of the country. Therefore they owe the country for permitting them to do what they do. Law and country are not suspended because someone owns something. Elementary.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:31 am
That happened to me recently. They gave me a stern warning and removed my video of “ugly girl beating down rich white girl.” It wasn’t intended to offend, it was dubbed over, as a mockery of violence.
September 24th, 2008 at 12:47 am
actually YouTube is leaving the decision to audience. They determine which videos are inappropriate. So the control is in the hand of people themselves, that’s why the reaction was strange and unpredictable. It may affect YouTube popularity while they didn’t mean to do that of course.
September 26th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
You make a good point that it is not the censorship itself, but the censorship in relation to the government’s suggestion. I don’t believe YouTube will take much of a hit. Part of the reason YouTube became so successful in the first place was because of its censorship (or more accurately, quality control). While you may have to worry about being Rick-rolled when you click on a “Presidential debate” video, you don’t have to worry about spam shock video advertising (using violence, porn, etc.) simply using hot keywords to draw people to their website.
September 26th, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Thanks Brad for putting more light on this point. Because I see that there is no other reason for the people’s anger except their sensitivity against governmental Authority . YouTube didn’t apply new rules but they just remind people clearly about what they should do. You are also right , they should care about the misleading hot keywords.