Comments on: Consequences of YouTube’s new guidelines

By: Newbornbusiness

Newbornbusiness — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:19:28 +0000

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.

By: Bradford

Bradford — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:38:03 +0000

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.

By: Newbornbusiness

Newbornbusiness — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:47:57 +0000

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.

By: Harry

Harry — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:31:07 +0000

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.

By: chris

chris — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:39:29 +0000

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.

By: Newbornbusiness

Newbornbusiness — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:01:27 +0000

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.

By: rojuka

rojuka — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 19:39:08 +0000

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.