I reported a video on Youtube for the first time.

13-11-2013 01:48PM

Ugh.

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

Artful_Badger · 13-11-2013 01:56PM

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 · 13-11-2013 01:56PM

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 · 13-11-2013 01:56PM

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 · 13-11-2013 01:59PM

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 · 13-11-2013 01:59PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:01PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:03PM

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

13-11-2013 02:06PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:07PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:10PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:10PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:12PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:18PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:18PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:18PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:20PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:23PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:24PM

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 · 13-11-2013 02:29PM

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.

Vito Corleone · 13-11-2013 02:34PM

The Budd Dwyer video is very tame, you'd want to be very sensitive to be affected by it imo.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 13-11-2013 02:37PM

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

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.

Your middle point. Sex magazines/books are put on the top shelf and illegal to sell to under 18's. Alcohol is illegal to sell to under 18's. Certain tv shows are only shown after the watershed. Music has curse words blocked out during the day. Films have strict age ratings and so do some video games.
Now do you think we should remove all this 'arrogant censorship' or do you think trying to prohibit children from substances and material deemed for adult consumption only is the right thing to do?

Now, does making the sale of alcohol to under 18's mean no child will ever ever ever find a way to drink, the answer is obviously no, but you have to think if we removed all the barriers children have of gaining access to alcohol would we see a rise in under age drinking, the answer to me at least is obviously yes.

Jester252 · 13-11-2013 02:38PM

Content like this should be age gated. As in a screen that asks if your over 18 like other videos on youtube. If a child lies and gets access to this content its the child/parents fault for what s/he sees

hansfrei · 13-11-2013 02:41PM

Depressing soap operas like "westenders" are way worse as far as Influence on children goes.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 13-11-2013 02:43PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

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.

But there's no real barrier to entry, unlike buying alcohol or smokes or nudey magazines. Until we find a way that will make it harder for children to access this content your going to get knee jerk political responses and the very thing everyone on here seems to be so against will happen faster and in a more extreme way.

Like Cameron on his porn opt in filter idea. There's surely a happy medium in there somewhere.

returnNull · 13-11-2013 02:45PM

just to point out that the age rating system for videogames is not legally enforceable here unlike the age ratings for dvd's/movies or the sale of alcohol.Its a voluntary rating system run by PEGI.

Skatedude · 13-11-2013 02:47PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

But there's no real barrier to entry, unlike buying alcohol or smokes or nudey magazines. Until we find a way that will make it harder for children to access this content your going to get knee jerk political responses and the very thing everyone on here seems to be so against will happen faster and in a more extreme way.

Like Cameron on his porn opt in filter idea. There's surely a happy medium in there somewhere.

Yes there is, it's called parent supervision

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo · 13-11-2013 02:52PM

Skatedude wrote: »

Yes there is, it's called parent supervision

There's more to it then that. How can a parent supervise/control every single thing their 16 year old does, says, consumes or buys?

Artful_Badger · 13-11-2013 02:55PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

But there's no real barrier to entry, unlike buying alcohol or smokes or nudey magazines. Until we find a way that will make it harder for children to access this content your going to get knee jerk political responses and the very thing everyone on here seems to be so against will happen faster and in a more extreme way.

Like Cameron on his porn opt in filter idea. There's surely a happy medium in there somewhere.

How much harder ? Its either going to be impossible or its not. I'd wager its not. So then its up to the guardians of those kids accessing the internet to make sure they are not bypassing what barriers are in place to set this content apart from the rest.

As far as things go youtube does a pretty good job of segregating that sort of stuff from the harmless stuff. Everything that users like you see fit to flag will end up behind the age filter. If someone is intent on seeing it then they will see it regardless on another site if not youtube. I'd say most people who see this stuff anyway dont see it on youtube given its more freely available elsewhere.

NTMK · 13-11-2013 02:59PM

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

There's more to it then that. How can a parent supervise/control every single thing their 16 year old does, says, consumes or buys?

cant do much but there is a world of difference between a 13 year old and a 16 year old in terms of maturity.

Youtube cut most adult content (porn etc) of their site but videos like this they wont do anything and tbf if sky news is allowd to show someone killing himself and re-running it for the best part of a week then dont expect youtube to hold themselves to a higher standard

I reported a video on Youtube for the first time.

Comments