| Revision as of 09:37, 14 June 2010 editIanmacm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,161 edits →Animal Abuse: copyedit, see http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/throwpuppy.asp . The status of this controversial video remains undetermined← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:09, 20 July 2019 edit undoZxcvbnm (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers61,812 editsm ←Changed redirect target from Criticism of Google#Youtube to Criticism of Google#YouTubeTags: Redirect target changed Visual edit |
| (132 intermediate revisions by 86 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
#REDIRECT ] |
|
Since it was founded in 2005, the video sharing website ''']''' has faced varied criticism. This criticism has been focused on its content, its approach to the ], and the site’s policies in relation to ], removal of videos and banning of users. |
|
|
In its ] YouTube prohibits/advises against the uploading of certain types of content including ], ], ], ], and ] relating to accidents.<ref name="YouTube.com">. "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. http://www.YouTube.com/t/community_guidelines. Retrieved 2010-02-07.</ref> However, it continues to face criticism over content that is posted on the site, on the grounds that it is distasteful or violates the laws of certain countries. The site has also been accused of ] because of its removal of certain types of material. <ref name="www.nytimes.com">A slippery slope of censorship at YouTube. October 9, 2006, retrieved April 19, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/technology/09link.html</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Redirect category shell|1= |
|
==Animal Abuse== |
|
|
|
{{R unprintworthy}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{R from merge}} |
|
Whilst YouTube does state explicitly that users should not upload videos containing ] <ref name="YouTube.com"/>, such material continues to exist on the site.<ref>"Animal cruelty films on YouTube. August 19, 2007, retrieved April 19, 2010. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2284380.ece</ref> The ] has condemned these videos. An RSPCA spokesman said: “We’ve seen every kind of animal abuse on YouTube, from clips of ] to one of a ] being thrown off a fifth floor balcony for fun. It’s definitely not a joke; really it’s a sad reflection on our society <ref name="technology.timesonline.co.uk">Times online, "Animal cruelty films on YouTube" August 19, 2007, retrieved August 25, 2007. http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article2284380.ece</ref> .” |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
Due to the ability of YouTube users to hide their identities, it is extremely difficult to prosecute those who are involved in animal cruelty. Again, the RSPCA have said “To prosecute successfully we need to know not just who is responsible but also where and when the incident took place, and that’s almost impossible.” Some of the videos show obviously deliberate acts of cruelty to animals. For example, one video shows a ] being doused in ] before being set on fire. This particular video received widespread condemnation from bodies such as the RSPCA <ref name="technology.timesonline.co.uk"/>. |
|
|
|
|
|
Other videos that appear to show cruel treatment of animals may have been falsely constructed. A video posted in 2008 appeared to show a ] in ] throwing a ] from a cliff-top. The video was initially condemned, before suspicion began to grow that the puppy was already dead when it was thrown. A spokesman from the veterinary college, Charlie Powell, said it made no difference whether it was fake or not, it was still a deliberate intention to show animal cruelty: "Whoever did produce the film needs to be looked at, even if it is fake, because the intent is the same and represents a horrific act of cruelty, real or not <ref>Honolulu Star Bulletin,"Marine Tosses Dog from Cliff on YouTube March 4, 2008, retrieved March 21st 2008. http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/03/04/news/story03.html</ref>." |
|
|
|
|
|
==Violence== |
|
|
A common criticism of YouTube focuses around the posting of violent content such as ‘]’, gang assaults and other videos relating to physical abuse. These videos have been deemed by many to be offensive and in violation of YouTube’s censorship policies, in addition to inciting similar behaviour in users. Recent cases have included cases of ‘]’ in ] <ref>BBC: Panorama, 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6929493.stm</ref>, but also considerably more serious cases such as a 2008 assault in ] in which the victim lost her sight and her hearing <ref>K. Jones, Videotaped Florida Teen Beating Prompts Calls To Block Violent Content, |
|
|
Information Week, 8th April 2008, http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207100417)</ref> and a ] case in ] <ref>J. Richards, YouTube Criticised for gang rape video, Times Online March 4th 2008, http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3482663.ece</ref>. In both cases videos were uploaded to YouTube. In both cases the videos were removed, but critics attacked YouTube for failing to censor the videos originally. In the case of the second report, it took a second warning before the offending video was taken down <ref name="guardian.co.uk">Mark Sweney, “YouTube bans violent videos”, Guardian, 12th September 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/12/digitalmedia.YouTube</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
Criticism has not been solely limited to specific examples. In 2008 a ] report in the ] criticized YouTube for failing to do more in maintaining a consistent reaction to videos deemed offensive, most notably the fact that users have to flag a video before the site can deem it offensive <ref>Mark Sweney, “MPs tell Internet firms to police “dark side” of the web”, Guardian, 31st July 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/31/internet.YouTube</ref>, instead recommending that a system be introduced to ] dangerous videos before introduction to the site. |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube’s traditional response has been that flagged material is generally removed within half an hour <ref>Mark Sweney, “MPs tell internet firms to police 'dark side' of web “ Guardian, 31st July 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jul/31/internet.YouTube)</ref>. However, in light of criticism, YouTube introduced new guidelines that specifically prohibited the uploading of violent content, asking users not to post videos of users getting hurt <ref name="guardian.co.uk"/>. These measures have been introduced after YouTube explained they could not hope to police the 20 hours of video being uploaded onto the site every minute. The site has, instead, introduced optional swear-word filters for user-generated text on the site and has updated its technology to allow its reviewers to police flagged videos more quickly.<ref>Kaya Burgess, “British Users Most Likely to Flag Offensive Material says YouTube” Times Online, 3rd June 2009 http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6423094.ece</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Neo-Nazis and genocide denial== |
|
|
|
|
|
On December 18, 2007, the news network ] reported about the abundance of ] ] and ] videos on YouTube.<ref>"Neo Nazis on YouTube". CNN. December 18, 2007. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/12/17/pleitgen.neo.nazis.on.you.tube.cnn.</ref> Hundreds of Nazi and ] glorifying, Holocaust-denying, ] and ] videos have been brought to the attention of both YouTube and its parent company ] by the ] ] group ] (tr. "Central Council of Jews"), which did "not get any response". The German TV-magazine Report Mainz reported that even over a hundred complaints by the federal Jugendschutz.net watchdog to YouTube about videos forbidden by German law had not been answered and that the flagged content had not been removed by YouTube.<ref>Neonazi-Propagandafilme: Zentralrat der Juden droht YouTube mit Anzeige - Netzwelt - SPIEGEL ONLINE – Nachrichten 26 Aug 2007 www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/0,1518,502093,00.html</ref><ref>http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL2751050320070827</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Religious comment== |
|
|
]'s video "Welcome to Saudi Britain" was removed by YouTube early in October 2008, but reinstated shortly after. In the video Condell criticises Britain's sanctioning of a ] court, and refers to the entire country of ] as ] for its abuse of women. A YouTube spokesman said "YouTube has clear policies that prohibit inappropriate content on the site, such as ], gratuitous violence or ]...If users repeatedly break these rules we disable their accounts." The National Secular Society were among the complainants to YouTube in support of Condell. The ] said that quote "As usual, he does not mince his words, but he is not saying anything that is untrue. His main thrust is one of outrage on behalf of those ] women who will suffer because they are forced to have their marital problems solved in a male-dominated Sharia court." <ref>Beckford, Martin (2008-09-04). "YouTube censors comedian's anti-Sharia video called 'Welcome to Saudi Britain'". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3130883/YouTube-censors-comedians-anti-Sharia-video-called-Welcome-to-Saudi-Britain.html. Retrieved 2009-03-16.</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Inconsistency in responses to demands for censoring content== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{See also|Censorship by Google#YouTube}} |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube often faces demands to remove content from ]. However, its responses are often inconsistent. In some cases, the site accedes to the demands and ], whereas in others it refuses.<ref>"Taking the Battle to Youtube. Tim Stevens, Open Security: Contemporary Conflict. Retrieved on 20-04-2010. http://www.opendemocracy.net/terrorism/article/tim_stevens/youtube_regulation_radicalisation</ref> ] has hypothesised that YouTube often has to choose between “bending to censorship and losing business opportunities” <ref name="online.wsj.com">Jane Spencer and Kevin Delaney, “YouTube Unplugged” , Wall Street Journal March 21st 2008 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120605651500353307.html</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===YouTube agrees to remove content=== |
|
|
|
|
|
There have been several examples of YouTube removing content relating to then-current political content. During the ], YouTube removed videos of air strikes against the ] ] ] that were posted by the ] (IDF).<ref>Israel posts video of Gaza air strikes on YouTube AFP, December 30, 2008</ref> |
|
|
In 2007 the ] ] blocked access to YouTube because clips had been posted that violated that country’s strict ] (i.e. criticism of the ]). Although YouTube did not block the content they wanted, they did show the government how to censor the material.<ref>BBC, 7th April 2007, “YouTube tries to resolve Thai ban” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6535509.stm</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
===YouTube refuses to remove content=== |
|
|
|
|
|
{{See also|Censorship by Google#YouTube}} |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] ] blocked access to YouTube in 2007 because clips had been posted that were insulting to ]<ref>BBC, 22nd March 2007, “How governments censor the web” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6475911.stm</ref>. Access has not since been restored, because YouTube have not taken down the videos in question. |
|
|
|
|
|
In ], the site was blocked because YouTube refused to remove clips of protesting monks.<ref name="online.wsj.com"/> |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] ] was the first blogger to win the Knight International Journalism Award <ref>Egyptian blogger first to win award. August 30, 2007, retrieved April 19, 2010. http://gulfnews.com/news/region/egypt/egyptian-blogger-first-to-win-award-1.197536</ref> but YouTube suspended his account because it showed ], ] and ], which were flagged up as inappropriate content <ref>CNN “YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist’s account” 29th November 2007 http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/29/YouTube.activist/</ref>. They blocked the videos in all countries, not just in Egypt. However, the majority of his clips were later allowed back online. |
|
|
|
|
|
In response to a ] ], ] tried to block regional access to YouTube. However, they later allowed it again after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a ] government official<ref>Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban | CBS News.com</ref> concerning Islam.<ref>Pakistan welcomes back YouTube | Tech news blog - CNET News.com</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Privacy on YouTube == |
|
|
There have been cases where user information collected by YouTube has been released, as the following court case from 2008 illustrates. Under the terms of a court judgement, ], owner of ], requested the details of video-watching histories, ] and ] from ], the owners of YouTube. They wanted this information in order to prove that YouTube was hosting thousands of television and media clips in ] <ref>Verkaik, R. (4 July 2008). Privacy of YouTube users under threat. The Independent. Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/privacy-of-YouTube-users-under-threat-859983.html.</ref><ref>BBC. (3 July 2008). Google must divulge YouTube log. News. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7488009.stm.</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
In 2010 the ] started an investigation into what Google (the owner of YouTube) does with the user information it collects, specifically from users accessing content within the ]. The main concern is that regarding the types of ] used by YouTube. Instead of using “session cookies” which only record a user’s choices for the period they are connected to a website, YouTube uses cookies which relate to its users for months and track internet surfing, identifying interests as potential customers <ref>EurActiv. (29 January 2010). Google under EU scrutiny for YouTube privacy policy. News. Available at: http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/google-eu-scrutiny-YouTube-privacy-policy/article-180077.</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
==Copyright== |
|
|
|
|
|
The majority of videos removed from YouTube are due to a ]. For example, the large media corporation ], owning such stations as ] and ], ordered YouTube to remove 100,000 television and film clips. Viacom asserted that YouTube unlawfully benefits from pirated clips <ref>Viacom, 2007, YouTube Litigation Pages: “YouTube: Myth vs. Reality” www.viacom.com/news/News_Docs/YouTube%20Myth%20vs.%20Reality.pdf</ref>. There has also been previous disagreement between YouTube and the ] over the amount of ]. As there was no settlement of a licence that matched the objectives of both parties, all professional music videos were removed. YouTube have suffered since many viewers use the site to source new music videos <ref>Cochrane, Greg. (10/3/2009). “YouTube row: will music fans lose out?” BBC Radio 1 Newsbeat. http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/newsbeat/newsid_7933000/7933659.stm .</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
Content posted on YouTube must be permitted by ]; the uploader must own the copyright to a posted video.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines |title=YouTube Community Guidelines |accessdate=2010-02-07 |publisher=]}}</ref> Despite this, a large amount of potentially infringing content continues to be uploaded by users that do not hold copyright to such videos. A decision in October 2007 allowed media companies to block their copyrighted video content loaded onto YouTube without seeking any prior permission.<ref>Viacom and YouTube Start Dishing Dirt in Copyright Dispute. March 19, 2010, retrieved April 19, 2010. http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/viacom-and-youtube-start-dishing-dirt-in-copyright-dispute/</ref> Since 2007, changes to the interface mean that only rights holders are able to directly report copyright violations.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=55774 |title=Reporting Copyright Infringement |date=2009-12-10 |accessdate=2010-02-07 |publisher=]}}</ref> In 2010, the ] sought to pass a law that would make ] and similar sites liable for content that violates copyrights that is posted by users.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1039908&c=1 |title=Italy plans copyright crackdown on YouTube |date=2010-02-04 |accessdate=2010-02-07 |publisher=MusicWeek}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
] remains divided on YouTube. Ian Schafer, CEO of ] company Deep Focus has been quoted as saying "'the marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it.'"<ref name="sitefright"> |
|
|
{{cite news |first=Ben |last=Jones |coauthors=Leamonth, Michael |url=http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117960880.html?categoryid=13&cs=1 |
|
|
|title=Showbiz's site fright/Web seen as both a threat and a gold mine |
|
|
|publisher='']'' |date=2007-03-10 |accessdate=2007-03-12}}</ref> Further, |
|
|
{{quote|While lawyers are demanding filtering technology, many Hollywood execs actually enjoy the fact that YouTube only takes down clips when they request it. "If I found part of a successful show up on YouTube today, I'd probably pull it down immediately .... If I had a show that wasn't doing so well in the ratings and could use the promotion, I wouldn't be in a rush to do that."<ref name="sitefright"/>}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Content owners are not just targeting YouTube for copyright infringements, but are also targeting third party websites that link to infringing content on YouTube and other video-sharing sites, for example, QuickSilverScreen vs. ],<ref>{{cite news |first=IPTV |last=Guy |title=TV Show Directory QuickSilverScreen.com Threatened by Fox |url=http://www.webtvwire.com/tv-show-dire]]ctory-quicksilverscreencom-threatened-by-fox/ |work=Web TV Wire |date=2006-07-12 |accessdate=2006-10-12}}</ref> Daily Episodes vs. Fox,<ref> |
|
|
{{cite news |first=Lord |last=Thor |title=DailyEpisodes closed down by Fox, for LINKING to TV show episodes! |url=http://digg.com/tech_news DailyEpisodes_closed_down_by_Fox_for_LINKING_to_TV_show_episodes |work=Digg.com |date=2006-10-02 |accessdate=2006-12-10}}</ref> and ] vs. Slashfilm.<ref>{{cite news |first=Peter |last=Sciretta |url=http://www.slashfilm.com/article.php/20060726145607684 |title=Columnia Pictures tells /Film to remove website link |publisher=SlashFilm |date=2006-07-26 |accessdate=2006-10-12 |
|
|
}}</ref> In all these cases, independent video sites were successfully actioned against for copyright infringement by major television corporations. The liability of linking remains a grey area with cases for and against. The law in the U.S. currently leans towards website owners being liable for infringing links<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.webtvwire.com/linking-to-infringing-content-is-probably-illegal-in-the-us/ |title=Linking to infringing TV Shows is probably illegal in the US |publisher=WebTVWire |date=2006-09-26 |accessdate=2006-10-12}}</ref> although they are often protected by the ] providing they take down infringing content when issued with a take down notice. However, a recent court ruling in the ] found Google not liable for linking to infringing content (]). |
|
|
|
|
|
In addition, YouTube has a rule prohibiting false claims of copyright from being filed; again, as with the rule aiming to prevent such videos from being uploaded, this too has been subject to abuse. For example, when American commentator and blogger ] uploaded commentary about ] to YouTube, using footage from his music videos and concert in ], ] then forced its removal by issuing a ] takedown notice.<ref>Malkin, Michelle. , MichelleMalkin.com, 2007-05-03.</ref> The ] joined Malkin in contesting the removal as a misuse of copyright law, citing ].<ref>, ''Electronic Frontier Foundation'', 2007-05-09.</ref> In May 2007, UMG rescinded its claim to the video, and the video returned to YouTube. |
|
|
|
|
|
Problems with YouTube's copyright protection practices has caused some internet ] who originally started on YouTube such as Doug Walker (]) to forgo YouTube altogether and form their own websites.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.avclub.com/chicago/articles/youtube-phenom-doug-walker-aka-that-guy-with-the-g,24918/ |title=YouTube phenom Doug Walker, a.k.a. "That Guy With The Glasses" |date=2009-03-24 |accessdate=2010-02-07 |publisher=AVClub}}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Site Policies== |
|
|
|
|
|
YouTube contains rules to ban videos. Videos surmounting to ] through the use of ] and ] are prohibited from being submitted onto the site. In 2007, a video of ] located in the area where 11-year-old ] was shot dead was viewable to users. YouTube contains global community guidelines that bar content which encourages and motivates a culture of violence <ref>Gibson, Owen. (18/9/2008). “YouTube curbs videos fuelling gang violence”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/18/YouTube.google</ref>. YouTube’s decision to follow through with the banning of these types of videos was spurred on by the presence of terrorist associated videos, some exhibiting the ] logo. ], who own YouTube, decide what videos will be disabled. Their policy states that the reasons for immobilising a user’s videos do not need to be given <ref>Needleman, Rafe. (4/3/2010). “Can you appeal a YouTube ban?” CNET to the rescue. http://www.cnet.com/8301-31361_1-10464091-254.html</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
User moderation dictates which sites are deemed inappropriate as the large amount of videos makes it impracticable to inspect individual video content <ref>Gibson, Owen. (18/9/2008). “YouTube curbs videos fuelling gang violence”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/18/YouTube.google</ref>. YouTube users are provided with the option to flag certain video content that are considered to be inappropriate or that possess certain technical difficulties. It allows virtual community participation in the knowledge that action will be taken over these sites. Critics of this system feel that it does not hold any specific person accountable to flagging as there is no user hierarchy. There is also a tendency for registered users to be biased when flagging certain videos. There are different types of ‘flaggers’. The classic flagger abides by YouTube’s terms and conditions of service (TOS). The angry flagger or ‘haters’ are seen to flag videos on ] and ]. The self-righteous flagger maintains the stance of freedom of speech in defence of their own videos. The Eco-flagger boasts about the accounts which they have managed to delete through flagging. This anonymous virtual community culture means that videos can be falsely flagged <ref>Kampman, Minke. (14/8/2009). “You participate: the politics of the YouTube flagging system”. University of Amsterdam. http://www.minkekampman.nl/pdf/YouParticipate.pdf</ref>. It can also lead to tit-for-tat flagging <ref>Tom Zeller “A Slippery Slope of Censorship at YouTube” 9th October 2006, New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/technology/09link.html?_r=1</ref>. |
|
|
|
|
|
==See Also== |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==References== |
|
|
|
|
|
===Notes=== |
|
|
{{reflist|2}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==External Links== |
|
|
* Viacom's YouTube Litigation Pages on |
|
|
* Lovink, G. and Niederer, S. (2007) "Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube" |
|
|
|
|
|
{{You Tube}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{DEFAULTSORT:Criticism Of Youtube}} |
|
|
] |
|
|
] |
|