I reported a video on Youtube for the first time.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

To give context to the video here it is.

NSFW

This is the only copy of Budd Dwyer's press conference that is known to exist. During the making of "Honest Man", a feature length film about Dwyer's life, I attempted to acquire footage of his entire speech (Just the speech, NOT his suicide) but was denied by every news station in Pennsylvania. Oddly enough his suicide was, and still is, fully available to license from several news archives for a fee.

To me this is a testament to the power of Dwyer's words and a reminder of the continued cowardice by the local media within Pennsylvania.

Kids are supposed to be 13 years of age to watch content hosted on its site and I simply think that is too young an age to be exposed to videos of this nature. I have no issue with this video being hosted on other websites that would cover the 'darker' more 'adult' part of the internet but think Youtube isn't the place for it.

I also find it strange that Youtube will remove videos that have female boobies in a video yet can leave up a video of Miley Cyrus having sex with a giant cannonball. I get this is a separate point but there seems to be a weird line where breasts = banned, yet gyrating naked in a highly sexually charged manner = not banned.

Anybody agree or disagree with this?

wretcheddomain

Who are you to tell YouTube what to do?

wazky

If you have a problem with your child seeing things they shouldn't on youtube then supervise them on the internet.

Maybe parents should be responsible not the internet?

splashthecash

The link doesn't work for me and doesn't seem to point to youtube (or is it just redirecting?)

Matt_Trakker

Wait, so you have a problem of a video of someone making a speech?

Plus your link doesn't work.

Also have you ever heard of a firewall? Watch a youtube video on how to set one up so your sheltered kid won't see the anything of the real world.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

splashthecash wrote: »

The link doesn't work for me and doesn't seem to point to youtube (or is it just redirecting?)

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

Wait, so you have a problem of a video of someone making a speech?

Plus your link doesn't work.

Also have you ever heard of a firewall? Watch a youtube video on how to set one up so your sheltered kid won't see the anything of the real world.

Link works now.

mikom

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Link works now.

Urrgh............. reported to the Mod of Afterhours.

fenris

He was thinkin of the chizllers, Joe

Seriously though control your own kids access to the web instead of trying to turn it into sesame street for everybody else. Actually that chap in the bin might scare some one somewhere, so you better report that too.
Report on facebook or YouTube should only be used for genuine problems like dodgy kiddie stuff or suicide pact videos etc. I.e. Where there is actual danger to someone rather that notional potential danger to someone's sensibility, when you use these mechanisms frivolously you tie up resources that could be needed to sort something or in real time.

hfallada

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

To give context to the video here it is.

NSFW and contains graphic real violence.



Kids are supposed to be 13 years of age to watch content hosted on its site and I simply think that is too young an age to be exposed to videos of this nature. I have no issue with this video being hosted on other websites that would cover the 'darker' more 'adult' part of the internet but think Youtube isn't the place for it.

I also find it strange that Youtube will remove videos that have female boobies in a video yet can leave up a video of Miley Cyrus having sex with a giant cannonball. I get this is a separate point but there seems to be a weird line where breasts = banned, yet gyrating naked in a highly sexually charged manner = not banned.

Anybody agree or disagree with this?

There is a thing call free speech and expression. We fortunately live in a country were you can say whatever you want in media without it being censored. But in places like the middle east the media is often censored. Youtube gives you access to news you wont hear.

OP why should your values affect someones access to a video? You might not agree with Miley Cyrus but most twenty somethings see nothing wrong with it. It should be up to the viewer to choose whether or not to view something. If you are afraid of your child seeing something you should have a net nanny or whatever that BS program is.

A racist and often homophobic news story on RTE is going to have a greater negative affect on your childs development , than a pop artist singing in a slutty outfit.

cml387

If that's the video of Bud Dwyer shooting himself, then it's best not to click on the link.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

wretcheddomain wrote: »

Who are you to tell YouTube what to do?

They have a report a video function so I used it, it's the first time I have. I'm not starting a grass roots campaign or a movement involving my newly found organisation to try bring down Youtube as an entity.

wazky wrote: »

If you have a problem with your child seeing things they shouldn't on youtube then supervise them on the internet.

Maybe parents should be responsible not the internet?

Parents protecting their children from bad content on the internet goes beyond what either parties 'responsibility' is in my opinion.

Mint Aero

I think the first time I saw that video I was a kid and it was on tv, the news even if I recall correctly, graphic and all. :rolleyes: People are so soft nowadays.

Matt_Trakker

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Link works now.

OK, watched it and while I feel sorry that he killed himself he was obviously plagued with guilt and regret.
The video doesn't show anything graphic.
He gives his final speech and at the end takes out a gun, then the video ends.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

hfallada wrote: »

There is a thing call free speech and expression. We fortunately live in a country were you can say whatever you want in media without it being censored. But in places like the middle east the media is often censored. Youtube gives you access to news you wont hear.

OP why should your values affect someones access to a video? You might not agree with Miley Cyrus but most twenty somethings see nothing wrong with it. It should be up to the viewer to choose whether or not to view something. If you are afraid of your child seeing something you should have a net nanny or whatever that BS program is.

A racist and often homophobic news story on RTE is going to have a greater negative affect on your childs development , than a pop artist singing in a slutty outfit.

Can you give any examples of RTE being racist and homophobic 'often'?

Cienciano

It's a video of a guy making a speech. Says in the description it doesn't contain the shot at the end, it says at the start of the video that it doesn't contain the graphic violence at the end, and if you watch the video, it cuts off before he shoots himself.
Youtube isn't a babysitter

eviltimeban

Yeah it doesn't show him actually doing it.

By the way, Kurt Cobain had that press conference on VHS and used to watch it endlessly... apparently.

My name is URL

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

To give context to the video here it is.

NSFW and contains very graphic and real violence.

He doesn't actually shoot himself in that video. It ends when he pulls the gun out of the envelope. What's the problem exactly?

The Budd Dwyer case is unique anyway given that millions of people actually saw it live.. it's no more gruesome than the countless videos of serious car accidents and people being attacked by animals etc on YouTube.

Jarrod

I haven't clicked the link but, it being Budd Dwyer, I assume it's when he shot himself. TBH, I've no idea why anyone would want to watch that. Having said that, it's not up to Youtube to parent people's kids for them. If you don't want your kids seeing this stuff then monitor their internet use more closely.

As for that Miley Cyrus video, am I the only one that doesn't consider it to be sexual? Yes, she's naked in it but unless you go in for some pretty obscure 'sexual imagery' or consider nudity in itself to be sexual then I don't really see how it could be considered sexual.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

OK, watched it and while I feel sorry that he killed himself he was obviously plagued with guilt and regret.
The video doesn't show anything graphic.
He gives his final speech and at the end takes out a gun, then the video ends.

I put that up to be fair to the man. There are videos up there that show him actually pulling the trigger. Videos that have 100,000's of views and have been up for years which would strongly indicate Youtube have no issue with them being hosted on their site.

Matt_Trakker

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Link works now.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Can you give any examples of RTE being racist and homophobic 'often'?

I can, the pretty much every decade up to and including the 1970s, then it kinda went down..... very gradually.

Oh and Jimmy McGee, he's pretty famous for his casual racism when commentating on sport.

TheIrishGrover

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Parents protecting their children from bad content on the internet goes beyond what you either parties 'responsibility' is in my opinion.

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that it's not a parent's responsibility to protect their child from the Internet?

loveisdivine

The video specifically states that it does not contain any graphic images. So what exactly are you getting you're knickers in a twist about?

Matt_Trakker

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I put that up to be fair to the man. There are videos up there that show him actually pulling the trigger. Videos that have 100,000's of views and have been up for years which would strongly indicate Youtube have no issue with them being hosted on their site.

Oh, well then that's different.
Of course they shouldn't have videos showing someone blowing their brains out.
That's what gore galleries are for.

Not nice places at all.

mutley18

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I also find it strange that Youtube will remove videos that have female boobies in a video yet can leave up a video of Miley Cyrus having sex with a giant cannonball.

"I CAME IN LIKE A CAAANNONBALL"

Still works I guess.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i hate you op and everybody like you

returnNull

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I put that up to be fair to the man. There are videos up there that show him actually pulling the trigger. Videos that have 100,000's of views and have been up for years which would strongly indicate Youtube have no issue with them being hosted on their site.

maybe re-edit your post and change the tag to SFW because it makes you look like a liveline regular.

Oh and good luck with policing the internet.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Matt_Trakker wrote: »

I can, the pretty much every decade up to and including the 1970s, then it kinda went down..... very gradually.

Oh and Jimmy McGee, he's pretty famous for his casual racism when commentating on sport.

Children today are not 'exposed' to 1970's RTE now though are they.

The fact that the worlds largest video web hosting site has no issue with showing extreme, graphic, real violence to a 13 year old is much more worrying than what Jimmy McGee does or doesn't say to be honest.

I'm more offended by Miley Cyrus tbh.

Also - YouTube has age rated videos, the same as many other places. They can't be held responsible for parents not monitoring their children's activity online correctly.

Khannie

cml387 wrote: »

If that's the video of Bud Dwyer shooting himself, then it's best not to click on the link.

There is no shooting in the video. I wasn't aware of this and it is interesting (and sad).

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that it's not a parent's responsibility to protect their child from the Internet?

It's everyone's responsibility to protect children I would have thought, well, anybody that has an interest that is.

I'm not saying parents aren't responsible for their children, just that society has some duty of care. Like not putting advertisements on tv for local swinger spots in between Peppa Pig and Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom. :pac:

Specialun

He said boobies

Hehehe

** Runs out of room all red,Giggling like a girl ***

Ugh.

I hate the thought of society taking over the role of responsibility from parents. It could make for a terrible precedent.

Artful_Badger

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I put that up to be fair to the man. There are videos up there that show him actually pulling the trigger. Videos that have 100,000's of views and have been up for years which would strongly indicate Youtube have no issue with them being hosted on their site.

I'd assume the videos showing him actually kill himself would be age restricted/need an account and show a warning before being played. There is some horrendous stuff on youtube thats much worse than a guy shooting himself.

AEDIC

I am sorry OP but I really dont understand your motives for making that post here.

report a YouTube clip because it has explicit content and can be watched by children, then you post a link to it in here, where it could be clicked on and watched by..... you catch my drift.

You could have started the thread without the link

bear1

There are many videos on youtube showing death, most of them though require a login.
I know of another famous incident of the 70s in the States where a news anchor shot herself on live TV.
I don't get though why you complain about that video? As mentioned it ends when he takes the gun out. Nothing graphic about it.
If you are worried what your children may see on the net then download the software which blocks these contents.

Matt_Trakker

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Children today are not 'exposed' to 1970's RTE now though are they.

The fact that the worlds largest video web hosting site has no issue with showing extreme, graphic, real violence to a 13 year old is much more worrying than what Jimmy McGee does or doesn't say to be honest.

They can look on youtube for clips, sure that Dwyer chap killed himself in what? 1987? Sure that's 26 years ago, I'd never even heard of him until you linked the video.

Kids are pretty desensitized nowadays anyway, I guarantee you that your average 13 year old has seen more violence and sex than any previous generation.

But keep in mind the previous generation saw more than the one before...and the one before and society hasn't fallen into a cesspit of violent blood orgies.....yet. I would argue it's quite the opposite. It's a well-known fact that murder rates have been falling for decades. Indeed there are studies which show that violent crime has been plummeting over recent decades.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

just that society has some duty of care

Not really, society just has to function, it's up to parents/teachers (other professions concerned with education) to care about the upbringing of children.

Khannie

AEDIC wrote: »

report a YouTube clip because it has explicit content and can be watched by children, then you post a link to it in here, where it could be clicked on and watched by..... you catch my drift.

You could have started the thread without the link

There's actually nothing explicit in it. I can't really see why it's been reported. I wouldn't be mad about a 13 year old watching it because the guy is obviously very distressed (and it's clear from the text that he goes on to kill himself). It's possible for a 13 year old to read all about the gory details after the youtube video stops on wikipedia though and possibly paint a very gruesome picture in their mind. Nobody's reporting that.

Seems nannyish.

AEDIC

Khannie wrote: »

There's actually nothing explicit in it. I can't really see why it's been reported. I wouldn't be mad about a 13 year old watching it because the guy is obviously very distressed (and it's clear from the text that he goes on to kill himself). It's possible for a 13 year old to read all about the gory details after the youtube video stops on wikipedia though and possibly paint a very gruesome picture in their mind. Nobody's reporting that.

Seems nannyish.

Oh I agree totally...but I was just wondering where the OP drew the line.... not ok for YouTube to post the clip...but ok for them to post a link to the clip in here...

old hippy

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Can you give any examples of RTE being racist and homophobic 'often'?

Poster is talking about news stories about racism and homophobia, not RTE being racist and homophobic :D

I thought I was desensitized until I saw that video. There is something ... more harrowing ... when you know it is a real person and it really happened, as opposed to watching things on TV/movies. But I would never report it or I would want it to be taken down, because it was my choice to look at it, my own responsibility.

TheIrishGrover

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

It's everyone's responsibility to protect children I would have thought, well, anybody that has an interest that is.

I'm not saying parents aren't responsible for their children, just that society has some duty of care. Like not putting advertisements on tv for local swinger spots in between Peppa Pig and Ben and Holly's Little Kingdom. :pac:

So, because lazy or ignorant parents let their kids do whatever they want on the net or don't bother to police their usage or even go to the trouble to install readily available and free firewalls EVERYONE ELSE WHO USES THE INTERNET must pay the price?

This is an idiotic and dangerous idea passed about by lazy parents who would rather blame somebody else rather than actually parent their kids

Let's ban books we don't like because kids could read them. Let's ban alcohol because people can become alcoholics. Let's ban TV shows, music, films, videogames because we don't want our kids to see something they shouldn't.

here's an idea parents of young kids online: Keep the PC in the sittingroom. don't let them use internet in their bedrooms, don't get them smartphones, install a firewall..... LOOK AFTER YOUR KIDS instead of tell me and everyone else what they can and cannot watch!!!!!!

Censorship is arrogance.

aidan24326

Khannie wrote: »

There is no shooting in the video. I wasn't aware of this and it is interesting (and sad).

The guy in question was a Pennsylvania state official convicted of corruption and accepting bribes. He was due to be sentenced next day, called a press conference which was televised, read out a rambling speech before producing a gun and shooting himself through the mouth, all captured on tv at the time. The video of it has been on the web for a long time now. But don't watch it if you are disturbed by such things.

bear1

Just out of curiosity Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo (feckin long user name )

Have you ever seen the whole footage of that video? I have, and to say it's graphic is an understatement.
If you said you reported that then I would think ok maybe less of that stuff circulating is a good thing but it isn't so I seriously don't see youtube removing the video as it breaks no rules but in our society and in cyber space.
You can find videos on the net of people having sex with animals and even more bloody disgusting, kids (these I'd have no problem being banished from the net altogether).
So reporting that video, to me is pure nonsense. Sorry OP that's my feeling about it

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I'd assume the videos showing him actually kill himself would be age restricted/need an account and show a warning before being played. There is some horrendous stuff on youtube thats much worse than a guy shooting himself.

Is there really? Shhhiiiieeet.
I honestly thought Youtube was a 'kid friendly' site.

AEDIC wrote: »

I am sorry OP but I really dont understand your motives for making that post here.

report a YouTube clip because it has explicit content and can be watched by children, then you post a link to it in here, where it could be clicked on and watched by..... you catch my drift.

You could have started the thread without the link

I posted a link to the non graphic version of the video on here.
I reported the graphic version of the video that's on their site. How else could I have started a thread on the issue, seriously?

bear1 wrote: »

There are many videos on youtube showing death, most of them though require a login.
I know of another famous incident of the 70s in the States where a news anchor shot herself on live TV.
I don't get though why you complain about that video? As mentioned it ends when he takes the gun out. Nothing graphic about it.
If you are worried what your children may see on the net then download the software which blocks these contents.

I'm concerned what kids today are exposed to.

I'm not implying there's any conspiracy here but there's something that makes me feel quite uneasy about a website that is known by most people as the place that has that "adorable" 'Charlie bit my finger' video but yet also has a video of a man shooting himself in the head (and a lot more and worse than this apparently).

Seaneh

The video you reported doesn't show the shooting.

He pulls the gun out of the envelope and then the video cuts.

You can find the last minute of the video, including the death, on liveleek if you so wish.

BurnsCarpenter

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

here's an idea parents of young kids online: Keep the PC in the sittingroom. don't let them use internet in their bedrooms, don't get them smartphones, install a firewall..... LOOK AFTER YOUR KIDS instead of tell me and everyone else what they can and cannot watch!!!!!!

Censorship is arrogance.

Problem is, there are lots of irresponsible parents out there. You might raise your kids right, but they will still get exposed to such stuff through friends.

Despite the strong anti-censorship views on here, I think most people don't have a problem with society imposing some restrictions. Watersheds on TV for example.

TheIrishGrover

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Is there really? Shhhiiiieeet.
I honestly thought Youtube was a 'kid friendly' site.



I posted a link to the non graphic version of the video on here.
I reported the graphic version of the video that's on their site. How else could I have started a thread on the issue, seriously?



I'm concerned what kids today are exposed to.

I'm not implying there's any conspiracy here but there's something that makes me feel quite uneasy about a website that is known by most people as the place that has that "adorable" 'Charlie bit my finger' video but yet also has a video of a man shooting himself in the head (and a lot more and worse than this apparently).

First off, some people may be offended by your bad language. Should you be reported?

Second, regarding the highlighted: Then you need to educate yourself rather than ban everyone else from seeing something you do not like

Artful_Badger

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Is there really? Shhhiiiieeet.
I honestly thought Youtube was a 'kid friendly' site.

It is as long as those kids dont pretend to be adults when creating accounts I suppose.

But there is some rough stuff on there.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

old hippy wrote: »

Poster is talking about news stories about racism and homophobia, not RTE being racist and homophobic :D

He clearly wasn't. Please read his post that he responded with on this thread. Post number 20. He mentions how RTE were terrible up the 1970's and gradually got better and how Jimmy MaGee was a big racist.

bear1

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Is there really? Shhhiiiieeet.
I honestly thought Youtube was a 'kid friendly' site.



I posted a link to the non graphic version of the video on here.
I reported the graphic version of the video that's on their site. How else could I have started a thread on the issue, seriously?



I'm concerned what kids today are exposed to.

I'm not implying there's any conspiracy here but there's something that makes me feel quite uneasy about a website that is known by most people as the place that has that "adorable" 'Charlie bit my finger' video but yet also has a video of a man shooting himself in the head (and a lot more and worse than this apparently).

Fair dues, unfortunately it's very easy to find this content on the internet.
I'd imagine you could find videos of beheadings in Iraq if you wanted.
Am I concerned that it's there? Nope, because as mentioned I would need to go look for it. If I want to make sure I never see or my family I would install a filter.
Every parent (I imagine anyway) knows there are filters for this content.
So it is essentially up to YOU what is or is not shown. Not Youtube

TheIrishGrover

BurnsCarpenter wrote: »

Problem is, there are lots of irresponsible parents out there. You might raise your kids right, but they will still get exposed to such stuff through friends.

Despite the strong anti-censorship views on here, I think most people don't have a problem with society imposing some restrictions. Watersheds on TV for example.

I am totally anti-censoship but have, on numerous other posts, stated that I agree totally with restrictions. As you rightly say: Watershed times, age restrictions on games and movies, warnings on music labels etc. You will always get bad parents buying the next GTA game for their 10-year-old. What do you do? Purge the world of everything unsuitable for all or educate parents as to what's out there and punish them if needed. (Personally I believe there should be a hefty fine for parents buying unsuitable games for underage kids. I hear people complaining about game shops selling games to underage kids. I have yet to see it but I have seen them refusing to sell games to kids only for mam to come in and berate the employee for not selling them the game)

Society does play a pert but the first, second and third line of defense MUST be with parents. Johnny saw a horrifying video at Billy's house? Complain to Billy's parents, stop Johnny from going to Billy's house. NOT ban all videos you don't approve of.