Most Controversial Clips on TV (disclaimer: contains some offensive material and adult content, don't watch if you don't want to)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGL6mUJSsZg
Crazy Baby Laughing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02ox6ttIjg
YouTube is one of the most popular and open forums in which people across the globe can express their opinions, or show off their or someone else's "amazing" skills (amazement, mind you, is in the eye of the beholder). We are all well aware of the wide variety of videos which we can access on YouTube - everything from Japanese game shows to Britney Spears bombing her performance at the VMA awards can be seen on this site. I have provided the above links to show the range of material that can be viewed on the site. While testing the range of what can be found on YouTube, I searched for "controversial" and found that I had to approve my birthdate before I could access the first shocking video. Although YouTube's Leviathan has deemed me mature enough to view its content, it was enjoyable for all of about 5 seconds. On the other end of the spectrum, many of us have seen the Crazy Baby Laughing video, and wouldn't hesistate to share this wholesome videos with our mothers.
Despite the vast variety of videos one can post on YouTube, people who long for their 10 minutes of fame (that's how long a YouTube video can be) learn about their limits on the site. Under the YouTube Community Guidelines, the Tube Team asks that users respect the site, however, not "the kind of respect reserved for nuns, the elderly, and brain surgeons. We mean don't abuse the site." Every new community involves a certain level of trust and responsibility, especially when it is viewed by millions, young and old, around the world. Different kinds of subject material are not allowed on YouTube, such as pornography, sexually explicit content, and videos showing illegal acts (i.e. animal abuse, drug abuse, or bomb making). Other things aren't allowed that give some room for interpretation are videos displaying graphic or gratuitous violence (i.e. showing someone getting hurt, attacked, or humiliated), and videos posted simply for shock value (i.e. "gross-out videos of accidents, dead bodies and stuff like that"). The latter may come as a surprise since the first video I posted is entirely composed of shocking material. Finally, to the dismay of college students everywhere, we cannot post copyright material. Although I have heard of people posting entire movies on YouTube, I haven't seen on yet.
Now that you know what you can and can't do, what happens when you post a video of your cat attached to a homemade bomb? When YouTube users find videos that they find offensive and that violate the Terms of Use policies, then they can "Flag" these videos "as Inappropriate". The community itself acts as a Leviathan, since it perpetuates definitions of what behaviors are OK and what behaviors receive punishment. These videos then get reviewed by the YouTube Team to see if they do, in fact, breach the site's policies. Videos that are flagged are not immediately taken down. However, much like the Wikipedia review board, the YouTube team acts as the ultimate Leviathan in deciding what material stays on the site, and what gets thrown into the internet trash can. The Tube Team warns, "If we remove your video after reviewing it, you can assume that we removed it purposefully, and you should take our warning notification seriously." Severe violation of YouTube's policies results in permanent suspension of your account.
We conform to the norms and beliefs to the other people in this online community, as stated by Wallace, to maintain order that humans love so much. The standards, namely the YouTube Community Guidelines and YouTube Terms of Use, are created by the YouTube team in order to maintain cohesiveness on the site, as colorful and diverse as its members can be. Because YouTube is a site many people go to for entertainment or information, the non-conformists on the site, the people who show the most creative and fantastic videos, are nurtured and supported by viewers. However, once you breach policy and show videos of that dead body in your backyard, you may find yourself in your own YouTube graveyard.
Comment 1: http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/61-hunting-leviathan-of-wikipedia.html
Comment 2: http://comm245blue.blogspot.com/2007/10/6-peaceandquietcornelledu.html
6 comments:
I am a YouTube addict and I have not heard about this policy until now. It’s interesting that the community itself acts as part of the Leviathan by flagging inappropriate videos. It shows how eager people are to have an orderly environment in which certain standards are maintained. Although at times some users may post videos that are not acceptable, in general it appears as if the “sign on the door,” reproaches and the actually Leviathan are effective. I do recall watching copyright material such as movies on YouTube when it first started but now it is almost impossible to find full episodes or movies. While I do miss going on YouTube rather than to the video store, it is reassuring that such a tight knit group and norms can flourish on the internet.
You make a great point by pointing out that youtube's leviathan is it's own community. Ordinarily, I am thankful for this, because it means that it takes a little longer for the powers to be to notice copyright infringement, and I can enjoy my free programing for a short while. But, in the case you have presented I wonder if it is appropriate for this kind of laissez-fair policy. Perhaps a service that reaches so many, so quickly, it is irresponsible of google. I can understand the desire for the community to be able to post videos quickly, and easily, so that it fosters discussion and responses, but at the cost of hosting potentially offensive and illegal images I think they are taking a huge risk. Great post!
Great post! You seem to have figured out the ins and outs of Youtube. What I find most interesting is the fact that, while Youtube does require viewers to be of age if material is graphic or potentially inappropriate, the system seems to be fairly easy to breach. How strong is this Leviathan, anyway? Yet, at the same time, one must consider how the site could truly control for age deception.
The notion of “flagging” is an interesting one. What if a viewer is truly offended by a clip or foresees others being potentially offended? How must they feel about the lag period between their flagging of the video and the Youtube Leviathan’s taking action – if he/she/it chooses to? Concerning this invisible Youtube police force, I wonder what viewpoint is the regulating force. People range in age, belief, shock value, appeal, conservatism and a host of other judgments about the things they see.
Finally, I feel that the mere suspension of an account may not be proportional punishment for the user who inflicts severe enough pain or discomfort on a fellow Youtube patron. Fines might be something to consider, or even legal considerations? All I’m saying is, when Janet Jackson shared her graphic information at the publicly televised Superbowl, she got in her fair share of trouble.
A Great and clear post on YouTube! It would be interesting to investigate the other side, specifically the norms of flagging videos. While hopefully this doesn't occur very often, people could abuse the flagging feature of YouTube in order to attempt to remove videos they simply don't agree with. In addition, they could also just be spiteful and flag videos randomly generating unecessary work for YouTube reviewers. Also by flagging videos they may reduce the number of hits if people fear that it may actually be inappropriate. I wholeheartedly agree that it's important to uphold social norms, but perhaps the flagging feature could be construed as a little reactionary. In fact, in the YouTube community guidelines they state, “You may not like everything you see. ... If it doesn't (violate the Terms of Use), then consider just clicking on something else—why waste time watching videos you don't like?”
I'm going to have to echo the sentiments of the other commentors; Youtube's Leviathan doesn't seem to be terribly effective in dealing with breaches of policy. I watch all manner of movies and tv series on the site on a fairly regular basis and it usually takes a while before they vanish (this usually only happens when whatever company contacts Google about it). Also, there's quite a bit of sexual content, but Youtube seems to subscribe to the policy that it's only overtly sexual if there's nipple showing, which is ludicrous.
And yes, people also tend to flag videos if they don't agree with the viewpoints expressed, out of jealousy of a video's popularity, etc. Users can coordinate a mass-flagging attempt and get something removed fairly easily. Is the Leviathan in this case the Youtube moderators themselves, or do they act at the whim of the site's users or corporate interests?
I was surprised at how tame the first link was. It's kind of sad that this is the most controversial stuff on TV, and it's not even remotely shocking when viewed online. When I was a kid we didn't have YouTube, we sent our friends links to Goatse and TubGirl and that's the way it was and we liked it.
It's actually interesting to compare and contrast this to Flickr. Flickr allows some nudity as long as it isn't pornographic. For example, they allow photos of the annual mermaid day parade in Brighton Beach. The one thing they apparently don't allow is photos of children smoking. Go figure.
Post a Comment