According to FOXNews.com, a British mother of two small children was gang raped and the video, recorded on a cell phone, and was posted on YouTube. After officials were notified, the video was taken off the website. Approximately 600 people viewed the episode online. The article does not state whether the three boys who committed the rape were punished for posting it.
According to U.K. law, "sites that host videos posted by third parties must act 'expeditiously' to disable access to them in the event of a complaint in order to avoid any liability that may result from the content appearing."
What's the problem? A graphic, disturbing, and illegal video was placed online. Although the video was taken off, people still viewed this atrocity that should have never been posted online. With the opportunity for third parties to post videos on sites such as YouTube, pornographic or violent content has been posted.
I fully believe Andrew Keen would be disgusted with what happened and would find it to support his view on the downfall of Web 2.0. I have to agree with him. YouTube allows anyone to post on the site, and this is exactly Keen's point. Where are the "experts" to validate posts, such as the one mentioned? Yes, inappropriate videos are taken off, but that's only after someone has flagged it and the proper site officials have reviewed it to take it off. YouTube still allows any video to be posted without first being reviewed; the gang rape is not the first video regarding sex or violence. Where's the education in it being posted? There isn't any. It's sick, and I wonder where YouTube's ethics is when there still is no pre-reviewing of videos.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334818,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment