# Monitoring on video website



## tink (3 Jul 2008)

Hi guys just heard on the news a teenager posted a video of themselves throwing a baby across the room with an inflatable pillow and posted it on a well known video site (dunno if I can say the name), this comes on the heels of a gang rape video being removed after 600 views, the company says they depend on their users to report these videos as too much content is placed on the site to monitor, I vote that they a) reduce the content uploaded and monitor the videos being posted or b) shut the site down. I cannot believe nothing has been done about this, what does everyone think?


----------



## mathepac (3 Jul 2008)

So if someone posts inappropraitely on AAM would you propose that the site be shut down, harsh penalties imposed  on the site owners / moderators and the fairly responsible majority of the user-population punished for the actions of a minority?

Is George Bush on your  Christmas-card list?


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Jul 2008)

Seems like the needs of the many out those of the few...


----------



## extopia (4 Jul 2008)

tink said:


> what does everyone think?



Well, I think that it's impossible to prevent video sharing, whether via Youtube, Bebo or whatever. It's probably easier to address the real problem - i.e. why are kids throwing babies across rooms, getting involved in gang rapes etc. (and before anyone says they're doing it so they can post their deeds on the internet, I take the point, but I don't think that's the real problem).

We have to deal with the cause, not the symptom.


----------



## tink (4 Jul 2008)

No, Im saying if they are not going to monitor it they should shut it down, I think it is appalling that  woman is the victim of a gang rape and the site is allowing to be posted as some sort of entertainment? If you think that is OTT I would wonder about your moral code to be honest!


----------



## jhegarty (4 Jul 2008)

tink said:


> No, Im saying if they are not going to monitor it they should shut it down, I think it is appalling that  woman is the victim of a gang rape and the site is allowing to be posted as some sort of entertainment? If you think that is OTT I would wonder about your moral code to be honest!




But it isn't allowed , it was removed as soon a reported...


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Jul 2008)

The only alternative is moderator approval for everything thats posted. No one has the resources to do that, or more accurately it would cost too much to do that. Also the delay in posting things would hurt the sites popularity. Thus hurting the potential to make money from it. 

Basically this is about cost effectiveness rather than best practice, or protecting peoples rights, or copyright etc.

Theres more to come on these issues I expect.
[broken link removed]


----------



## Bubbly Scot (4 Jul 2008)

The well known auction site hit the news this week for allowing fake designer goods to be sold. The point was made that they should be monitoring the site and not relying on the general public,which is one thing they cited in their defence. I have to say, I agree with that in both cases. I don't think it's enough to say they rely on the public to report inappropriate material, it's THEIR site, they are making money from it, so they are responsible.

AAM is slightly different, if you try to register a complaint against an inappropriate post there is a message saying "do not post obvious spam as the moderators are quick to see and delete this" (might not be exact quote but that's the vibe of the message).  This site relies on some amount of public moderation but it doesn't fall into the same category as the situations outlined by the OP.


----------



## rmelly (4 Jul 2008)

mathepac, AAM is a not for profit site - Google owned youtube isn't, as such they have a responsibility they are not currently living up to. Comparisons to search engines, bulletin boards, ISPs are not valid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7488009.stm


OP, change may be afoot. The case above is a first step by Viacom that should either result in a deal with Google (which potentially opens the floodgate for other companies to force Google to the table), or will result in Google properly policing the youtube site.

I'd prefer if it was the latter.


----------



## Complainer (4 Jul 2008)

SHould we post a 'monitor' beside every photocopier and printer too? We wouldn't want any dirty stories or dirty pictures getting out there....


----------



## rmelly (4 Jul 2008)

youtube hosts and profits from the files being viewed - that's the difference - nothing to do with 'monitoring' - more to do with corporate resposibility in my opinion. Can a company that disseminates videos of gang rapes still claim to live by the motto "don't be evil"?


----------



## z103 (4 Jul 2008)

The internet is full of horrendous video content.
If it gets deleted from youtube, it'll just end up somewhere else. It's very difficult (impossible?) to police.


----------



## rmelly (4 Jul 2008)

leghorn said:


> It's very difficult (impossible?) to police.


 
In that case the service should be shut down.


----------



## Complainer (5 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> youtube hosts and profits from the files being viewed - that's the difference - nothing to do with 'monitoring' - more to do with corporate resposibility in my opinion.


Just like Xerox and the other photocopier manufacturers earns profit from the photocopier - no difference at all.


----------



## rmelly (5 Jul 2008)

Completely different - youtube hosts the files (they physically reside on their servers) and then allows near unrestricted access to them to hundreds of millions of internet users, embeds advertising for financial gain, breaching copyright on an unprecedented level etc.

If my photocopier could instantly make a page accessible to the same audience, they maybe you would have a point. Also the photocopier can be used to copy something, but if it is not distributed then no one will see it, unlike youtube.

There are file sharing services out there where viewing the files is by invitation only. I could upload a video but if I never disseminate the URL then no one will EVER see it, this would be a better model but I suspect it wouldn't be as profitable for google so isn't a runner.


----------



## car (5 Jul 2008)

> youtube hosts and profits from the files being viewed - that's the difference - nothing to do with 'monitoring' - more to do with corporate resposibility in my opinion. *Can a company that disseminates videos of gang rapes still claim to live by the motto "don't be evil"?*


Yes as they do not profit from _evil_ files.  They are removed and posters reported to authorities where appropriate.


----------



## car (5 Jul 2008)

rmelly said:


> Completely different - youtube hosts the files (they physically reside on their servers) and then allows near unrestricted access to them to hundreds of millions of internet users, embeds advertising for financial gain, *breaching copyright* on an unprecedented level etc.
> .....
> There are file sharing services out there where viewing the files is by invitation only. I could upload a video but if I never disseminate the URL then no one will EVER see it, *this would be a better model* but I suspect it wouldn't be as profitable for google so isn't a runner.



Youtube work hard to keep copyrighted content off their servers.  Any content that bypasses this system is removed once reported.

A better model for who?    Everyone knows what youtube is,  unless you get a link to a vid saying "watch this link on youtube of a gang rape" and you click on it, youre not going to see it.   Your average surfer isnt going to be trawling youtube for it.    Youve as much chance of viewing it by mistake on youtube as anywhere else on the net.


----------



## rmelly (5 Jul 2008)

car said:


> Youtube work hard to keep copyrighted content off their servers. Any content that bypasses this system is removed once reported.


 
Which explains why Viacom alone have identified 150,000 files that have been viewed 1.5 BILLION times. They're clearly not working hard enough.



> Everyone knows what youtube is, unless you get a link to a vid saying "watch this link on youtube of a gang rape" and you click on it, youre not going to see it.


 
Not true - content can be accessed numerous ways: 

Someone can easily obfuscate by using a random or unrelated title. 
Searching the site
General navigation of the site (Off home page alone there is: Featured videos, Promoted videos, video's being watched right now etc)
Related Videos by Author etc.


----------



## rmelly (5 Jul 2008)

car said:


> Yes as they do not profit from _evil_ files. They are removed and posters reported to authorities where appropriate.


 
But the example the OP cited was available long enough to be viewed 600 times - what's the lead time between it being reported and actually being removed? Days, hours, minutes or seconds?


----------



## car (5 Jul 2008)

> Not true - content can be accessed numerous ways:
> 
> Someone can easily obfuscate by using a random or unrelated title.
> Searching the site
> ...



Which is why I said



> Youve as much chance of viewing it by mistake on youtube as anywhere else on the net.


----------



## rmelly (5 Jul 2008)

This point is irrelevant - how many of the 600 viewed by mistake I wonder? youtubes popularity as a single source of content means content on it is much more likely to be found 'by accident' than nearly anywhere else on the web. I could upload something to for example rapidshare, or host it myself, but if I don't tell anyone about it, or post links to it, no one will find it and no search engines/bots etc will pick it up.


----------



## car (5 Jul 2008)

> youtubes popularity as a single source of content means content on it is much more likely to be found 'by accident' than nearly anywhere else on the web.



While I know youre advocating a moderated youtube site, with 10 hours of content going up every minute, it really would be impossible to moderate.   The model serves the online community as well, if all vids were moderated, it would be impossible to get vids up there, so a moderated youtube might not be better for all.

By and large the online community stick to the guidelines, theres enough online sites dealing with the vids from the darker side of society and they know the vids will be left up there.  Why take the trouble to post to a site where you know it has a very short life span and leaving yourself a potential to get caught as  youtube work with authorities.

While 600 viewers did get to see the vid in question, it was removed once reported, under u.k. law illegal content is to be removed "expeditiously" once reported, which youtube do.     

Anyway [broken link removed] about sums it up.  Yes, it shouldnt have gone up there, when it went up it should have come down quicker, but a moderated site is not in everyones interest.  Looks like we differ on that.


----------



## z103 (5 Jul 2008)

> But the example the OP cited was available long enough to be viewed 600 times - what's the lead time between it being reported and actually being removed? Days, hours, minutes or seconds?


It took three months to be removed.
They also urinated on her according to this;
*http://tinyurl.com/5c8qa5
*


----------



## rmelly (5 Jul 2008)

car said:


> While 600 viewers did get to see the vid in question, it was removed once reported, under u.k. law illegal content is to be removed "expeditiously" once reported, which youtube do.


 
Well according to the link you supplied this particular clip wasn't removed "expeditiously" once reported.


----------



## car (6 Jul 2008)

> Well according to the link you supplied this particular clip wasn't removed "expeditiously" once reported.


Theres nothing in that link to say it wasnt taken down expeditiously once _reported_, they just say it should have come down quicker.

If you want to watch gang rape clips theres enough sites out there, dont search youtube for it.  If you dont want to  watch them and you accidentally stumble across an instance of it on youtube, press the "stop play" button and report the vid as unsuitable to youtube.     
If you feel theres a chance you may come across a gang rape vid or indeed any other type of vid on youtube that you dont want to watch, stay off youtube.


----------



## rmelly (6 Jul 2008)

car said:


> Theres nothing in that link to say it wasnt taken down expeditiously once _reported_, they just say it should have come down quicker.


 
Not quite - they admit that a mistake was made - they don't say what that mistake was, I would imagine it was that the request to remove it wasn't acted upon sufficiently quick enough. Otherwise what mistake are they admitting to?



> The internet giant explained to MPs today that the offending clip would normally have been taken down from the immensely popular video-sharing site sooner.


----------

