Hacker News Reader

Comment by Raphmedia | Hacker News Reader

But is Youtube really the right platform for such videos? It's a platform made to host videos in order to put advertiser's ads on them. When I think "raw war videos", I think of Liveleak.

View on HN

For many users, Youtube is the only video publishing site, and many people get their news through YT. Very few people are aware of the existence of LiveLeak; it is an ineffective platform for spreading awareness.

Agreed. I don't click liveleak links if I don't feel like watching someone get murdered on camera. So, basically, I don't click liveleak links.

Would you prefer to stumble across those on Youtube?

It seems better that material which needs to be kept for history and remained uncensored due to advertising is on a site dedicated to that instead of a site which most people use for videos of recipes, memes, and great football headers.

Yeah, there does need to be some sort of inhibition against highly traumatizing content, it should certainly not be promoted to people who do not seek it out. But purging news videos of statues being destroyed and ancient buildings being demolished, is going too far.

This is a solved problem. Flag it and it will get behind a confirmation screen asking you if you're really sure to view the video.

YouTube is now what TV used to be. So yes, you should be able to show this content. However, the platform needs to provide betyer tools to users and producers to aide in categorizing content.

When did TV ever show content like this?

I remember graphic photos of Iraqi war crime victims on the evening news in '91.

I saw plenty of different views of folks being injured or killed in recent protests on the television, I saw folks losing their lives in Nice recently on television, I saw a reporter shot point blank in 2015 on television, I saw an old man shot to death from the point of view of the killer earlier this year on television.

And that's not even counting war footage.

I'm not hunting this stuff down, the only protection against watching this crap is a half second pause after the reporter says "Warning, the following may be considered graphic."

The funny thing is : I don't own a television; I just go to a diner with whatever garbage news channel everyone in the place likes at any given time for breakfast occasionally. Even brief casual glimpses at any given news channel are bound to get you an eye-full of gore or violence of some sort.

But what happens if YT doesn't want to host this content? Do they have a moral obligation simply because of their size?

I dont think its about morals, but more about userbase expectations. YouTube as a product is generally seen as a video archive. They do have the choice to not host it, but they risk an user exodus. Given the competition from Facebook, Snapchat, and the like, that's a risk they cant take. More so when it's Alphabet's only successful social network acquisition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com