Misplaced Pages

Criticism of YouTube: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:01, 28 March 2011 editPeterclancy (talk | contribs)93 edits serious← Previous edit Revision as of 00:37, 29 March 2011 edit undoAlison (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators47,244 editsm Reverted edits by Peterclancy (talk) to last version by 116.6.85.138Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
''']''' faces ongoing serious criticism as a ]. 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. Some of that criticism is based 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. ''']''' faces ongoing criticism as a ]. 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. Some of that criticism is based 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.



==Inconsistency in responses to demands for censoring content== ==Inconsistency in responses to demands for censoring content==

Revision as of 00:37, 29 March 2011

YouTube faces ongoing criticism as a video sharing website. This criticism has been focused on its content, its approach to the issue of copyright, and the site’s policies in relation to privacy issues, removal of videos and banning of users. Some of that criticism is based on the grounds that it is distasteful or violates the laws of certain countries. The site has also been accused of censorship because of its removal of certain types of material.


Inconsistency in responses to demands for censoring content

See also: Censorship by Google § YouTube

YouTube often faces demands to remove content from national governments. However, its responses are often inconsistent. In some cases, the site accedes to the demands and removes/blocks content, whereas in others it refuses. The Wall Street Journal has hypothesized that YouTube often has to choose between “bending to censorship and losing business opportunities”

YouTube agreement to remove specified content

There have been several examples of YouTube removing content relating to then-current political content. During the December 2008 Gaza Strip airstrikes, YouTube removed videos of air strikes against the Palestinian militant group Hamas that were posted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). In 2007 the Thai Government blocked access to YouTube because clips had been posted that violated that country’s strict lese-majeste laws (i.e. criticism of the Thai Royal Family). Although YouTube did not block the content they wanted, they did show the government how to censor the material.

YouTube refusal to remove specified content

See also: Censorship by Google § YouTube

The Turkish government blocked access to YouTube in 2007 because clips had been posted that were insulting to Kemal Ataturk. The ban was revoked on 31 October 2010 Source

In Myanmar, the site was blocked because YouTube refused to remove clips of protesting monks.

The Egyptian Wael Abbas was the first blogger to win the Knight International Journalism Award but YouTube suspended his account because it showed police brutality, voting fraud and anti-government demonstrations, which were flagged up as inappropriate content. 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 Pakistani government order, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd tried to block regional access to YouTube. However, they later allowed it again after YouTube removed controversial religious comments made by a Dutch government official concerning Islam.

Privacy concerns

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, Viacom, owner of several US television networks, requested the details of video-watching histories, IP addresses and usernames from Google, the owners of YouTube. They wanted this information in order to prove that YouTube was hosting thousands of television and media clips in breach of copyright law.

In 2010 the European Commission started an investigation into what Google (the owner of YouTube) does with the user information it collects, specifically from users accessing content within the European Union. The main concern is that regarding the types of cookies 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.

In July 2008, Viacom won a court ruling requiring YouTube to hand over data detailing the viewing habits of every user who has watched videos on the site. The move led to concerns that the viewing habits of individual users could be identified through a combination of their IP addresses and log in names. The decision was criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which called the court ruling "a setback to privacy rights". U.S. District Court Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the privacy concerns as "speculative", and ordered YouTube to hand over documents totaling around 12 terabytes of data. Judge Stanton rejected Viacom's request that YouTube hand over the source code of its search engine, saying that it was a trade secret.

In 2010, YouTube started forcing users to link a Google account. It is impossible to use YouTube while logged in without linking a Google account.

Copyright infringement

YouTube has been criticized for failing to ensure that uploaded videos comply with copyright law. At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a screen with the message "Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself". Despite this advice, there are still many unauthorized clips of copyrighted material on YouTube. YouTube does not view videos before they are posted online, and it is left to copyright holders to issue a takedown notice pursuant to the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Organizations including Viacom, Mediaset, and the English Premier League have filed lawsuits against YouTube, claiming that it has done too little to prevent the uploading of copyrighted material. Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". Since Viacom filed its lawsuit, YouTube has introduced a system called Video ID, which checks uploaded videos against a database of copyrighted content with the aim of reducing violations. In June 2010, Viacom's lawsuit against Google was rejected in a summary judgment, with U.S. federal Judge Louis L. Stanton stating that Google was protected by provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Viacom announced its intention to appeal the ruling.

In August 2008, a U.S. court ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order the removal of an online file without first determining whether the posting reflected fair use of the material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who had made a home video of her 13-month-old son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy", and posted the 29-second video on YouTube.

The majority of videos removed from YouTube are due to a violation of copyright laws. For example, the large media corporation Viacom, owning such stations as MTV and VH1, ordered YouTube to remove 100,000 television and film clips. Viacom asserted that YouTube unlawfully benefits from pirated clips. There has also been previous disagreement between YouTube and the Performing Rights Society (PRS) over the amount of monetary entitlements that should be provided to music artists when their video has been viewed. 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

Content posted on YouTube must be permitted by United States copyright law; the uploader must own the copyright to a posted video. 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. Since 2007, changes to the interface mean that only rights holders are able to directly report copyright violations. In 2010, the Italian government sought to pass a law that would make YouTube and similar sites liable for content that violates copyrights that is posted by users.

Hollywood remains divided on YouTube. Ian Schafer, CEO of online advertising company Deep Focus has been quoted as saying, "The marketing guys love YouTube and the legal guys hate it." Further,

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."

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. Fox, Daily Episodes vs. Fox, and Columbia vs. Slashfilm. 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 although they are often protected by the Digital Millenium Copyright Act providing they take down infringing content when issued with a take down notice. However, a recent court ruling in the U.S. found Google not liable for linking to infringing content (Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc.).

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 Michelle Malkin uploaded commentary about Akon to YouTube, using footage from his music videos and concert in Trinidad, Universal Music Group then forced its removal by issuing a DMCA takedown notice. The Electronic Frontier Foundation joined Malkin in contesting the removal as a misuse of copyright law, citing fair use. 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 satirists who originally started on YouTube such as Doug Walker (The Nostalgia Critic) to forgo YouTube altogether and form their own websites.

Companies such as VEVO, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, Viacom, and Sony Music Entertainment, have become frequent targets of harsh criticism from users, who see it as usurpation.

Site policies

YouTube contains rules to ban videos. Videos surmounting to gang violence through the use of guns and knives are prohibited from being submitted onto the site. In its Terms of Service YouTube prohibits/advises against the uploading of certain types of content including sexually explicit videos, animal abuse, drug abuse, bombmaking, and “shock” material relating to accidents. In 2007, a video of gang culture located in the area where 11-year-old Rhys Jones was shot dead was viewable to users. YouTube contains global community guidelines that bar content which encourages and motivates a culture of violence. 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 Al-Qaeda logo. Google, who owns YouTube, decide what videos will be disabled. Their policy states that the reasons for immobilizing a user’s videos do not need to be given.

User moderation dictates which sites are deemed inappropriate as the large amount of videos makes it impracticable to inspect individual video content. 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 flaggers, ‘haters’, are seen to flag videos on religion and politics. The self-righteous flagger maintains the stance of freedom of speech in defense of his own videos. The Eco-flaggers boast about the accounts which they have managed to delete through flagging. This anonymous virtual community culture means that videos can be falsely flagged. It can also lead to tit-for-tat flagging.

Controversial content

YouTube has also faced criticism over the offensive content in some of its videos. The uploading of videos containing defamation, pornography, and material encouraging criminal conduct is prohibited by YouTube's terms of service. Controversial areas have included Holocaust denial and the Hillsborough Disaster, in which 96 football fans from Liverpool were crushed to death in 1989.

YouTube relies on its users to flag the content of videos as inappropriate, and a YouTube employee will view a flagged video to determine whether it violates the site's terms of service. However, this procedure has been criticized by the United Kingdom government. In July 2008, the Culture and Media Committee of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom stated that it was "unimpressed" with YouTube's system for policing its videos, and argued that "Proactive review of content should be standard practice for sites hosting user-generated content." YouTube responded by stating:

We have strict rules on what's allowed, and a system that enables anyone who sees inappropriate content to report it to our 24/7 review team and have it dealt with promptly. We educate our community on the rules and include a direct link from every YouTube page to make this process as easy as possible for our users. Given the volume of content uploaded on our site, we think this is by far the most effective way to make sure that the tiny minority of videos that break the rules come down quickly.

In October 2010, U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner urged YouTube to take down from its website videos of imam Anwar al-Awlaki, tied to the accused Fort Hood shooter, Christmas Day bomber, and attempted Times Square bomber, and on the U.S. targeted killing list, saying that by hosting al-Awlaki's messages, "We are facilitating the recruitment of homegrown terror." British security minister Pauline Neville-Jones commented: "These Web sites would categorically not be allowed in the U.K. They incite cold-blooded murder, and as such are surely contrary to the public good." In November 2010, YouTube removed from its site some of the hundreds of videos featuring al-Awlaki's calls to jihad. It stated that it had removed videos that violated the site’s guidelines prohibiting "dangerous or illegal activities such as bomb-making, hate speech and incitement to commit violent acts," or came from accounts "registered by a member of a designated foreign terrorist organization." In December 2010, YouTube added "promotes terrorism" to the list of reasons that users can give when flagging a video as inappropriate.

Depictions of animal abuse

Whilst YouTube does state explicitly that users should not upload videos containing animal cruelty, such material continues to exist on the site. Due to the ability of YouTube users to hide their identities, it is extremely difficult to prosecute those who are involved in animal cruelty. Some of the videos show obviously deliberate acts of cruelty: for example, one video shows a cat being doused in petrol before being set on fire.

Other videos that appear to show cruel treatment of animals may have been falsely constructed. A video posted in 2008 appeared to show a Marine in Iraq throwing a puppy 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".

Depictions of violence

A common criticism of YouTube focuses around the posting of violent content such as ‘Happy slapping’, 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 ‘happy slapping’ in Britain, but also considerably more serious cases such as a 2008 assault in Florida in which the victim lost her sight and her hearing and a gang rape case in London. 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.

Criticism has not been solely limited to specific examples. In 2008 a Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report in the UK 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, instead recommending that a system be introduced to quarantine dangerous videos before introduction to the site.

YouTube’s traditional response has been that flagged material is generally removed within half an hour. 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. 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.

Neo-Nazis and genocide denial

On December 18, 2007, the news network CNN reported about the abundance of neo-Nazi propaganda and Holocaust denial videos on YouTube. Hundreds of Nazi and SS glorifying, Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic and racist videos have been brought to the attention of both YouTube and its parent company Google Inc. by the German Jewish group Zentralrat der Juden in Deutschland (German for "Central Council of the Jews in Germany"), 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.

Religious comment

Pat Condell'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 Sharia court, and refers to the entire country of Saudi Arabia as mentally ill for its abuse of women. A YouTube spokesman said "YouTube has clear policies that prohibit inappropriate content on the site, such as pornography, gratuitous violence or hate speech...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 National Secular Society 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 Muslim women who will suffer because they are forced to have their marital problems solved in a male-dominated Sharia court."

User comments

Most videos enable users to leave comments, and these have attracted attention for the negative aspects of both their form and content. When Time in 2006 praised Web 2.0 for enabling "community and collaboration on a scale never seen before", it added that YouTube "harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. Some of the comments on YouTube make you weep for the future of humanity just for the spelling alone, never mind the obscenity and the naked hatred". The Guardian in 2009 described users' comments on YouTube as follows:

Juvenile, aggressive, misspelled, sexist, homophobic, swinging from raging at the contents of a video to providing a pointlessly detailed description followed by a LOL, YouTube comments are a hotbed of infantile debate and unashamed ignorance – with the occasional burst of wit shining through.

In September 2008, The Daily Telegraph commented that YouTube was "notorious" for "some of the most confrontational and ill-formed comment exchanges on the internet", and reported on YouTube Comment Snob, "a new piece of software that blocks rude and illiterate posts".

See also

References

  1. "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
  2. ^ Jane Spencer and Kevin Delaney, “YouTube Unplugged” , Wall Street Journal March 21st 2008 http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120605651500353307.html
  3. Israel posts video of Gaza air strikes on YouTube AFP, December 30, 2008
  4. BBC, 7th April 2007, “YouTube tries to resolve Thai ban” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6535509.stm
  5. Lovink, G. and Niederer, S. (2007) "Video Vortex Reader: Responses to YouTube" pdf file
  6. BBC, 22nd March 2007, “How governments censor the web” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6475911.stm
  7. 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
  8. CNN “YouTube shuts down Egyptian anti-torture activist’s account” 29th November 2007 http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/29/YouTube.activist/
  9. Pakistan Drops YouTube Ban | CBS News.com
  10. Pakistan welcomes back YouTube | Tech news blog - CNET News.com
  11. 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.
  12. BBC. (3 July 2008). Google must divulge YouTube log. News. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7488009.stm.
  13. 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.
  14. "Google must divulge YouTube log" (Document). BBC News Online. July 3, 2008. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |work= ignored (help)
  15. "Google must divulge YouTube Log". BBC News. July 3, 2008.
  16. Helft, Miguel (July 4, 2008). "Google Told to Turn Over User Data of YouTube". The New York Times.
  17. Marsden, Rhodri (August 12, 2009). "Why did my YouTube account get closed down?". The Independent. London. Retrieved August 12, 2009.
  18. "Viacom will sue YouTube for $1bn". BBC News. March 13, 2007. Retrieved May 26, 2008.
  19. "Mediaset Files EUR500 Million Suit Vs Google's YouTube". CNNMoney.com. July 30, 2008. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
  20. "Premier League to take action against YouTube". London: Daily Telegraph. May 5, 2007. Retrieved May 24, 2008.
  21. "YouTube law fight 'threatens net'". BBC News. May 27, 2008. Retrieved May 28, 2008.
  22. Allen, Katie (November 1, 2009). "Google seeks to turn a profit from YouTube copyright clashes". London: The Guardian. Retrieved November 2, 2009.
  23. Lefkow, Chris (June 23, 2010). "US judge tosses out Viacom copyright suit against YouTube". AFP. Retrieved June 24, 2010.
  24. Viacom's YouTube Litigation Pages on their website
  25. Egelko, Bob (August 20, 2008). "Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved August 25, 2008. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  26. Viacom, 2007, YouTube Litigation Pages: “YouTube: Myth vs. Reality” www.viacom.com/news/News_Docs/YouTube%20Myth%20vs.%20Reality.pdf
  27. 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 .
  28. "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
  29. 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/
  30. "Reporting Copyright Infringement". Google. 2009-12-10. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
  31. "Italy plans copyright crackdown on YouTube". MusicWeek. 2010-02-04. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
  32. ^ Jones, Ben (2007-03-10). "Showbiz's site fright/Web seen as both a threat and a gold mine". Variety. Retrieved 2007-03-12. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  33. Guy, IPTV (2006-07-12). "TV Show Directory QuickSilverScreen.com Threatened by Fox". Web TV Wire. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
  34. Thor, Lord (2006-10-02). "DailyEpisodes closed down by Fox, for LINKING to TV show episodes!". Digg.com. Retrieved 2006-12-10.
  35. Sciretta, Peter (2006-07-26). "Columnia Pictures tells /Film to remove website link". SlashFilm. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
  36. "Linking to infringing TV Shows is probably illegal in the US". WebTVWire. 2006-09-26. Retrieved 2006-10-12.
  37. Malkin, Michelle. "Akon's record company abuses DMCA to stifle criticism on YouTube", MichelleMalkin.com, 2007-05-03.
  38. "Malkin Fights Back Against Copyright Law Misuse by Universal Music Group", Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2007-05-09.
  39. Channel claiming responsibility for false DMCA reports on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/YourMyResistance
  40. "YouTube phenom Doug Walker, a.k.a. "That Guy With The Glasses"". AVClub. 2009-03-24. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
  41. ^ . "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. http://www.YouTube.com/t/community_guidelines. Retrieved 2010-02-07.
  42. A slippery slope of censorship at YouTube. October 9, 2006, retrieved April 19, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/technology/09link.html
  43. ^ Gibson, Owen. (18/9/2008). “YouTube curbs videos fuelling gang violence”. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/18/YouTube.google
  44. 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
  45. Kampman, Minke. (14/8/2009). “You participate: the politics of the YouTube flagging system”. University of Amsterdam. http://www.minkekampman.nl/pdf/YouParticipate.pdf
  46. 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
  47. ^ "YouTube Community Guidelines". YouTube. Retrieved November 30, 2008.
  48. "YouTube criticized in Germany over anti-Semitic Nazi videos". Reuters. Retrieved May 28, 2008.
  49. "Fury as YouTube carries sick Hillsboro video insult". icLiverpool. Retrieved May 24, 2008.
  50. Kirkup, James; Martin, Nicole (July 31, 2008). "YouTube attacked by MPs over sex and violence footage". London: The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 21, 2008.
  51. "Al-Awlaki's YouTube Videos Targeted by Rep. Weiner". Fox News. October 25, 2010. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
  52. Burns, John F.; Helft, Miguel (November 4, 2010). "YouTube Withdraws Cleric's Videos". The New York Times. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
  53. Bennett, Brian (December 12, 2010). "YouTube is letting users decide on terrorism-related videos". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 14, 2010.
  54. "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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. BBC: Panorama, 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6929493.stm
  58. 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)
  59. 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
  60. ^ Mark Sweney, “YouTube bans violent videos”, Guardian, 12th September 2008 http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/sep/12/digitalmedia.YouTube
  61. 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
  62. 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)
  63. 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
  64. "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.
  65. 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
  66. Leske, Nicola (2007-08-27). "YouTube criticized over Neo-Nazi clips". Reuters.
  67. 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.
  68. "Time's Person of the Year: You", Time, December 13, 2006
  69. "Our top 10 funniest YouTube comments – what are yours?", The Guardian, November 3, 2009
  70. "YouTube's worst comments blocked by filter", Daily Telegraph, September 2, 2008
YouTube
People
Current
Former
Channels
Culture and
videos
Lists
Criticism
Apps and services
Events
Related
Categories: