Relevant?
[quote]I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - [i]Voltaire[/i][/quote]
English
-
[quote]“Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves.” ~ Friedrich Nietzsche[/quote]
-
The full quote is this: [quote]Freedom is the will to be responsible for ourselves. It is to preserve the distance which separates us from other men. To grow more indifferent to hardship, to severity, to privation, and even to life itself.[/quote] Admittedly I don’t really understand Nietzsche but isn’t this just saying that you’ve got to take responsibility for your own actions and to accept hardships in life? This quote is more about free will rather than freedom of speech. How does it relate to a bunch of morally outraged people trying to remove someone’s videos because they don’t like them?
-
Yeah it was more directed at the Paul chap. He should be more responsible, should have seen it would be 'inappropriate' I don't watch the guy, but people calling to pull down his channel seems extreme. I heard about the video. Knew I wouldn't like it, so didn't watch it. The quote could also be directed at the lynch mob. They should be responsible; Don't watch his channel to show you don't like his stuff. Nietzsche is my favourite philosopher. Albert Camus is a close second.
-
I'm not sure it's a matter of free speech and expression at this point. He's officially broken YouTube's terms of service.
-
Bearbeitet von Dinklebrat: 1/8/2018 12:03:42 AMI realise this. The video in question has already been removed. But the petition is asking for all the rest of his videos and his account be deleted as well. It’s more the concept itself that I object to anyway. I object to the idea that other people would take away my right to view those videos because they personally find them offensive or distasteful. Nobody has the right to decide on my behalf what I might find distasteful of offensive. No one has the right to say to me “we don’t think you should be able to view this video because we personally find it offensive”. If someone dislikes them they have the choice to not watch them. Just as I have the choice to watch them if I choose to.
-
I think it's fair, but not because freedom is being "restricted." He has violated YouTube's terms of service, so YouTube should take action against him. However, they won't take action because he's making them too much money. People are demanding that YouTube stop allowing this kind of content (which breaks their own rules) just so that they can have more money.
-
Go search “dead bodies” on YouTube. You will find literally hundreds of videos. Many of them much more explicit and gory than this one. The issue here isn’t the “terms of use” and whether he violated them or not. The issue is the “outrage” and “offence” caused by this one particular video. It was deleted because it made the news and because people were offended by it. Not because it violated the terms of use. Free speech should not be suppressed because people find something offensive. If every clip was removed because someone found something offensive about it then there wouldn’t be very many videos left on YouTube would there? For example videos making fun of religion (like South Park or something) will obvioulsy cause offence to some religious people. Should they be banned?
-
That's exactly what everyone's problem is. It's not because people are offended. It's because the video wasn't taken down for terms of service. It was taken down by the creator of the video, while YouTube did nothing about it. Yes, you can search dead bodies on YouTube and find millions of videos, but Logan Paul is a big YouTuber. He's become very well known and influential. There was no need for people to even search for dead bodies on YouTube because his video was at the top of the trending page. There's no way YouTube couldn't have noticed the video before it was taken down, so there's no reason that the video shouldn't have been taken down sooner, and there's no reason there shouldnt be some kind of repercussion.
-
[quote]YouTube did nothing about it. [/quote] YouTube obvioulsy believe it didn’t violate there terms of use then. It’s their site isn’t it? If they didn’t take it down then I guess they were fine with it (until it started to get them some bad press). So if YouTube was fine with it then why aren’t you? If you’re offended by it then don’t watch it. But don’t tell me or anyone else we can’t if we want to.
-
[quote]Violent or graphic content It's not okay to post violent or gory content that's primarily intended to be shocking, sensational, or disrespectful. If posting graphic content in a news or documentary context, please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the video. Don't encourage others to commit specific acts of violence. [/quote] That's what YouTube says about graphic content on their site. Pretty sure a dead body where only the face is blurred counts as graphic content. Plus, they described certain aspects of the body, such as how the hands were purple, which would also count as graphic.
-
Bearbeitet von Dinklebrat: 1/8/2018 2:13:50 AMIt doesn’t say graphic it says gory - an important distinction. Was there any blood or guts? Could you see any of his body at all in fact? Did they show you his hands for example? Even if they did show the body it still probably wouldn’t violate the terms: [quote]If posting graphic content in a news or documentary context, please be mindful to provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the video .[/quote] Didn’t he put a warning at the start and didn’t he explain they were going into a forest we’re people go to commit suicide - hence meeting the requirements to “provide enough information to help people understand what's going on in the video“. It could also be argued that the clip was a documentary could it not? Those terms are broad enough to allow just about anything it seems.
-
Does a dead body (who's hands were described by one member of the trip as purple; obviously due to the victim suffocating and blood flowing away from the brain after death) not count as some level of gore. Plus, the video was not for educational or documentary purposes. So, those exceptions to the rule are not valid. In fact, the video was for exactly what the rule does not allow: violance or gore intended for shock or sensation. And, while the video did include a disclaimer, the body was shown in the thumbnail, so anyone that went to the trending page saw the body without any explanation or disclaimer besides "WE FOUND A DEAD BODY."