Zach S
Member
Oddly enough, I'm not surprised. Didnt they detain a guy at an airport for wearing a transformers t shirt?
"Cool, that's Optimus - OMG HE'S GOT A SWORD!!!"
YouTube bans knife and gun videos (Retry #1)
- Thread starter I'm Thinking...
- Start date
- Status
"Cool, that's Optimus - OMG HE'S GOT A SWORD!!!"
Kind of Blued
Member
I thought they were done? Apparently, they're still circling the toilet bowl on their way down.
Gunnerpalace
Member
There wont be a mass exodus, I'll explain tomorrow somebody remind me.
What this ban is really aimed at is islamo-terrorist propoganda movies. If this ban does not trickle over to weapon demonstration then I am not worried. I doubt it will get out of hand because YouTube wants people to use it to the max, that way they make more money. The less people that use it the less money they make.
Superlite27
Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2007
- Messages
- 712
The logical conclusion to this is that: since the depiction of weapons in YouTube videos is now verboten, won't they have to ban actual theater movies since they display intimidating use of weapons?
Or are violent Hollywood films O.K.? If you censor violent videos, aren't movies included in the "video" format?
Or are violent Hollywood films O.K.? If you censor violent videos, aren't movies included in the "video" format?
Calibre44
Member
Gun mags are freely available in the UK including ‘Guns and Ammo’
No it wasn’t ‘the brits’, it was probably some leftly tree hugging pussy who complained (you’ve got them in the US too). The poster was not taken down. Film posters involving guns are all over the place over here including on buses
Chisel Head
Member
In that case, wouldn't it be better to cure the disease, instead of the symptom?Ben86 said:
If they did that, I don't think Dity Harry's day will be madeSuperlite27 said:
If it wasn't, would Youtube go out of their way to voluntarily censor their videos for the British market only?Damien said:
The British government is taking a hypocritical stand, when they turn a blind eye to British- mercenaries and mercenary contracting companies interfering with the affairs of "developing countries". Thus, forcing refugees to flee those countries and to enter ours. Whereas, France has taken the step to outlaw mercenary activity.
So, any kind of terrorism to happen in Britain ends up being poetic justice
wulfbyte
Member
Banning of certain types of videos on Youtube.com. Why is this troubling? From my perspective it is not about what youtube.com chooses to do or not do, but rather that a particular government has placed restrictions on what may or may not be published. Was there a law passed which outlaws this type of information? Or was sufficient pressure placed to ensure compliance? Will this ban extend to other publishers (web sites and or ISP's)? If I publish materials of this type on the internet, with the UK government go after me next?
Anytime freedoms are suppressed anywhere, it is cause for concern. In an age when I may publish information from my home to the entire world at the push of a button, should I ignore what is clearly an attack on a fellow publisher? Will I allow freedoms to be eroded away in the name of propriety and so called "political correctness"? Today is the removal of the mere depiction of weapons; tomorrow?
Anytime freedoms are suppressed anywhere, it is cause for concern. In an age when I may publish information from my home to the entire world at the push of a button, should I ignore what is clearly an attack on a fellow publisher? Will I allow freedoms to be eroded away in the name of propriety and so called "political correctness"? Today is the removal of the mere depiction of weapons; tomorrow?
Calibre44
Member
That type of comment is exceptionally low round, extremely offensive and not welcome on this forum.
Read the rules for posting!
eflatminor
Member
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2006
- Messages
- 421
...from which users need to be protected against
You know who else felt strongly that citizens needed protection "for their own good'? Mussolini is a good example, so was Hilter. Stalin was also big on doing what was best for his people, even if that meant getting rid of those that didn't "get it". Those Brits are so lucky to have such big hearted MPs to look after them.
You know who else felt strongly that citizens needed protection "for their own good'? Mussolini is a good example, so was Hilter. Stalin was also big on doing what was best for his people, even if that meant getting rid of those that didn't "get it". Those Brits are so lucky to have such big hearted MPs to look after them.
GrizzlyGraves
Member
All this proves is that my countrymen have proven time and time again that the government knows whats best for them.
If something goes wrong, if somebody is scared by a video on the internet then have no fear, the Home Office is here!
They are truly the nation formally known as Great Britain.
If something goes wrong, if somebody is scared by a video on the internet then have no fear, the Home Office is here!
They are truly the nation formally known as Great Britain.
drgrenthum
Member
i dont know if anyone elsse has pointed this out, but its the internet. If they cant post on UK youtube what is to stop them going to regular youtube or looking up any other type of violence one would wish to see on the internet.
I fail to see how limiting the content of UK youtube will decrease any crime.
I fail to see how limiting the content of UK youtube will decrease any crime.
arthurcw
Member
It’s not about limiting crime, it's about limiting exposure. You let people see ANY gun images, positive or negative, that you didn’t pre package form mass consumptions, you run the risk of people accepting guns as common place.
If, however, you control ALL exposure to guns and make sure that the exposure that your subjects get is all negative and planned for maximum affect, then you can keep them scared of all weapons and make them have weak bladders at the sight of an empty .22lr casing.
Easy. A country, especially one that doesn't have free speech laws, can go to its Internet providers and say, "You will block these IP addresses." The companies that don't want to end up at the pointy end of Her Majesties Government will comply. Down stream companies being blocked will say, "Hang on, don't block us. We will regulate ourselves." So YouTube will probably deny any UK IPs from getting "Certain Content" on the regular YouTube. Simple.
ETA: Not being a holier than thou American. It's wouldn't be so hard for .gov here to block sites based on Homeland Security Issues. It just may not stick if the courts get involved. But then again... Do you really trust any branch of .gov to do the right thing?
Gunnerpalace
Member
I'm Back Ok
For the Youtube inclined you may remember when the MPAA went postal and youtube agreed that the would pull movies even if the movie was playing tin the other room of a video blog,
Well people got bent and for a while everyone was on the bandwagon of lets go to Live-Leak or some others site few went the rest stayed,
The best you can do is complain to Youtube, but then again England is a lost cause.
For the Youtube inclined you may remember when the MPAA went postal and youtube agreed that the would pull movies even if the movie was playing tin the other room of a video blog,
Well people got bent and for a while everyone was on the bandwagon of lets go to Live-Leak or some others site few went the rest stayed,
The best you can do is complain to Youtube, but then again England is a lost cause.
Chisel Head
Member
You're right. I should have worded the comment carefully. I should have added that poetic justice is justified, as long as it affects only those guilty and not innocent people. In which case, I referred to condoning politicians and the businessmen conducting this dirty business. Since your form of government isn't democratic, I couldn't honestly imply that the constituents who vote those politicians into office could be held directly responsibleCalibre44 said:
Fine. We can always find ways to outsmart those who wish to treat us like small children. We could always view what we want, through a proxy server. But, nevertheless, it's somehow insulting to usdrgrenthum said:
makarovnik
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,678
Pooh!
PILMAN
Member
Youtube already has censorship by country options, for example, I had a German friend trying to view a video about Neo Nazi gangs, and it said he wasn't allowed to view that video from his country. Youtube can block by IP with any gun related videos.
Beatnik
Member
Thanks for pointing that out Gunnerpalace....
Youtube already has several restrictions in place, besides the copyright violations restrictions.
Anyone ever watched porn on youtube, ever?
No.
That must mean that there isn't any more porn on the internet now, right?
If Youtube/Google were truly anti, we'd be a lot more aware of it, and they wouldn't rule the world right now.
All they're doing is bowing to market forces in the UK. This a good thing, even despite the fact that the UK doesn't want what's right for them.
Youtube already has several restrictions in place, besides the copyright violations restrictions.
Anyone ever watched porn on youtube, ever?
No.
That must mean that there isn't any more porn on the internet now, right?
If Youtube/Google were truly anti, we'd be a lot more aware of it, and they wouldn't rule the world right now.
All they're doing is bowing to market forces in the UK. This a good thing, even despite the fact that the UK doesn't want what's right for them.
Quantum of Solace, the new James Bond film, opens Nov.14. From what I've seen of the trailers and sneak peeks, firearms are prominently featured in this film, a film about a British guy.
How far a step is it for a country that used to put X ratings on films that we would watch on T.V. here to ban depictions of all weapons from all media?
How far a step is it for a country that used to put X ratings on films that we would watch on T.V. here to ban depictions of all weapons from all media?
Chisel Head
Member
On some sites, I get the old 404. I used to think that was I.P. related. But, like your friend, maybe it was somehow segregated by country.PILMAM said:
As far as videos are concerned, I have't yet had any problems viewing, in that respect. Maybe, the Verfaßungsschutz is keeping an eye on him
SaMx
Member
YouTube can do what ever it wants, I don't personally agree with it but that is certainly their choice - it does go against their founding principles.
YouTube also will also have some of those laws apply in the US due to Liberman(or so he says at least).
To be honest everything is on the internet and stopping certain things on youtube certainly won't prevent it from ending up on another website.
YouTube also will also have some of those laws apply in the US due to Liberman(or so he says at least).
To be honest everything is on the internet and stopping certain things on youtube certainly won't prevent it from ending up on another website.
myrockfight
Member
Whatever. Quite frankly. I wouldn't mind. It would just give someone, or a company, who is pro-gun, an opportunity to sieze that part of the market. I can't say whether it is an overall bad move for the RKBA though.
Chisel Head
Member
What are you going to do with an alternative video site which is unknown? Aside from search engine linking, I doubt that Youtube, itself, is going to provide a link to the alternative site
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
