YouTube clasps naked dancer to bosom It's official: smut is now allowed on YouTube – so long as it's artistic smut. And with this recognition that not everything that is naked is evil, YouTube appears to have scored one up on the slightly more straitlaced types over at Facebook. More seriously, by instituting a formal appeals process, it may have set the ball …
I suppose Robert Mapplethorpe is running out the door for a vid cam right now.
Could the Wiki-leaked footage of Apache pilots mowing down journalists and civilians be considered a performance piece on man's inhumanity toward man?
"A sensible man knows you can't please everybody. A wise man knows you can't please anybody." -Richard Needham
...that is a little concerned that "YouTube" decided to specifically mention titling/tagging video's with 'Human Rights' and 'Police Abuse'? Someone cynical would think that this suggestion is to make it easy for relevant "authorities" to find them and flag them (and get them removed). No-one here at El Reg is THAT cynical, is there?
“Nude women are only Art if there’s an urn in it,” said Fred Colon. This sounded weak even to him, so he added, “or a plinth. Both is best, o’ course. It’s a secret sign, see, that they put in to say that it’s Art and okay to look at.”
“What about a potted plant?”
“That’s okay if it’s in an urn.”
- Thud by Terry Pratchett
Can someone remind me why a child shouldn't see naked people? Children see naked animals, and sometimes their naked parent(s). What is so wrong with the human body that kids mustn't see it? What does this teach them? That nakedness, rather than being perfectly natural and healthy, is somehow wrong?
Is this part of the Christian Legacy? Can we move on from that now?
There's a yawning gulf between a kid seeing pictures of a naked person and child abuse, you know.
... for the vast majority of their existence humans have lived in one room dwellings with a whole extended family, parents, grandparents, teenagers, children all in the same space. Do you think mummy and daddy turfed everyone else out when they wanted to make a new baby?
Well, to be frank, that definition is immaterial to the argument of "if it's natural, it's ok to be viewed by all", which is what I took issue with.
However, to your point, no one will be more surprised than I when a fully, and exclusively, objective definition of what constitutes the line that must be crossed for nudity to also be pornography, is arrived at. So why rag on a site that says "someone else can fight that fight, we'll just ban it all and not bother with all those mucky law suits thank you very much". It really has nothing to do with perceptions of morality. Kudos to youtube and all, but congratulations may be premature - this will first have to survive the courts if the lawyers find an angle to cash in on, to be called a success.
I don't understand this at all. The EFF and NCAC's opinion seems to be that everyone with a internet connected computer should have to use it to spread every opinion.
This is a private company saying "you cannot post this on our servers" that seems to be their right. I could see if it was some government, that's a whole other matter, but Google (YouTube) should be able to censor themselves in whatever random way they want.
If these artists want to exhibit their art, they are free to put up their own web server to do it on.
Freedom of the press is not freedom to my press.
when TV stations and newspaper censor or slant the news to an agenda that's OK is it, because it's YOUR TV station, YOUR rules? So if Google, which all but controls the Internet these days, decides to remove your website from their search results for whatever reason they like, forcing you into bankruptcy because you've just lost all your traffic, that's OK is it? So you think big corporations should just be able to do what the fuck they feel like, because they're private entities and aren't bound by the freedoms enshrined in a number of constitutions, right?
Anyone with an IQ higher than that of a flatworm would realise that as an organisation becomes bigger it SHOULD become more publically accountable. Otherwise - well, do the words "corporate dictatorship" mean anything to you? Probably not.
I hope for humanity's sake that you two idiots haven't reproduced.
>when TV stations and newspaper censor or slant the news to an agenda that's OK is it,
>because it's YOUR TV station, YOUR rules?
Television and radio use the public airways, due to limited bandwidth, regulation of public airways is appropriate. Newspapers slant their reporting all the time.
>So if Google, which all but controls the Internet these days,
we declared Google owner of the internet? did I miss the memo?
>decides to remove your website from their search results for whatever reason they like, forcing
>you into bankruptcy because you've just lost all your traffic, that's OK is it?
1) Not all sites are for-profit
2) Google (to my knowledge) is not even being accused of this (what they actively host on youtube is nowhere near the same as what their search engine links to)
3) The amount of distrust of their results if they where ever caught doing the hypothetical you suggest would remove whatever percentage of a REAL monopoly they have
>So you think big corporations should just be able to do what the fuck they feel like, because
>they're private entities
BEAUTIFUL strawman! I want to point out how well crafted it is!
Not once did I say google (or any other corporation, for that matter) "should be able to do what the fuck they feel like." What I DID say was that the content they put up on their web-site should be their choice, just as the content I put on mine is my choice.
>and aren't bound by the freedoms enshrined in a number of
>constitutions, right?
You will have to explain to me this concept of being "bound by freedoms." This really seems an almost Orwellian phrase (and gives me the willies). "Freedom is slavery" see the overwhelming similarities?
No, governments are (in theory (if you need to know why I say it's a theory, ask the Chinese about Article 35)) bound by the limitations of their respective constitutions. These limitations on governments are to limit the ability to pass blatantly unjust laws. Furthermore, choosing not to express an idea is, in and of itself, the expression of an idea (namely your lack of affirmation of the idea you are not expressing).
>Anyone with an IQ higher than that of a flatworm would realise that as an organisation
>becomes bigger it SHOULD become more publically accountable. Otherwise - well, do the
>words "corporate dictatorship" mean anything to you? Probably not.
>I hope for humanity's sake that you two idiots haven't reproduced.
I want to compliment your use of argumentum ad hominem here. Well done, sir!
Thanks SOOOOO much for pointing me at that!
Since there is so much discussion and controversy about naked female breasts surely there must be a huge world toppling war going on over *That* video? I suppose context is everything but there is no context to this video other than what it contains. Why is this allowed and some harmless breasts are only allowed after appeal and justification? The human race is pathetic. I'm off back to the trees.
Yeah my mates have a few "artistic collections" stored in various TrueCrypt volumes to keep them from the Missus and the kids!
Judging by the chav mentality of most of the YouTube audience, fat chance of seeing any naked flesh that even remotely resembles art!
Naked flesh + video + YouTube = Porn! Simples!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2023
