Regulating YouTube seems like a near impossible task and something that has sparked up a great deal of debate lately. Whilst discussing this issue in a seminar and hearing the views of some of the other people on my course it struck me that, in the future, the opinions of these people could be more than just opinions, they could be reality. The students on media courses today will be professionals in the media industry in a few years time. They will put their ideas into practice, deciding if sites such as YouTube will be regulated and they will be learning how to do this now.
So what are your opinions? Should YouTube be more restrictive about what users can and can’t post? Is it even possible and if so, is it even worth it? Already you are able to report videos which you deem to be inappropriate, a sort of public interactive regulation, and it is either removed or flagged as unsuitable for children, meaning that only those who are logged in as over 18s can view it. Of course these methods are flawed, inappropriate videos are not always flagged as such, if the right kind of ‘busy body’ never comes across them, and setting yourself up with a YouTube account where you appear to be a few years older than you actually are is not difficult. It is also possible to abuse these rights. My boyfriend and his cousin posted a video spoofing the Harry Potter films which was flagged as being unsuitable for children, presumably by someone opposed to this kind of Potter mockery. The video did not contain any X-rated material so he and his cousin appealed to YouTube and the restriction was removed, but it just goes to show that it is not a seamless system.
As far as I’m concerned, it is up to a child’s parents to regulate their internet usage, just as it is up to them to ensure their children do not gain access to inappropriate video games or films. The regulation of YouTube would limit the freedom the internet offers and where would we draw the line? What about blog sites such as this? Would we have to have everything we post approved by website regulators before anyone could read it? Have every Facebook post sent through a regulation office before it arrived on the intended recipient’s wall? Surely this would detract from the immediacy and freedom we are given on the internet? A place where everyone can become a part of the media industry, be it as a journalist, film-maker or photographer. The internet provides you with the opportunity to share your world with millions, no matter what it is you care to share, and that can’t be a bad thing, can it?...
hmmm interesting... I agree with you about the parents having a certain element of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteUnderlyingly though I think the risk of an unsupervised child discovering an unsuitable video is a lesser risk than that of losing individual freedom. Restricting the freedom of the people doesn't work anyway, because the more restrictions, the greater the backlash.
I think flagging videos is a good idea, because we're regulating ourselves, rather than wasting our taxes paying for a stifling nanny state.
Estie
Of course I note that there's no mention of the regular occurances which come up where people are beaten, and videos of it are put on YouTube. Or the fact that there is no longer such a thing as private humiliation. If you go out, you're risking being recorded no matter what you're doing by someone who happens to have their phone camera aimed at you and decides to post it up on the internet somewhere.
ReplyDeletePeople say that censoring YouTube would be a step towards a nanny state where surveillance is king. I often wonder how we'd tell the difference.