You tube footage – Taste?

Good points but censorship is a whole new can or worms. For instance, if I use the following words on this forum: ****, ****, ********, **** – there is a very good chance that they’ll be censored yet I can hear them on any football terrace, high street, or movie (I apologise if they’re not censored!). Would you consider this a correct use of censorship simply because this kind of language is likely to cause offence?

The subject of seeing fatal airshow crashes in the public domain for the purpose of entertainment is completely disrespectful to the pilot and my concern is that on a forum that is populated by many airshow ‘consumers’ we’re debating whether it’s right or wrong to see our friends killed over and over again in the name of entertainment.

This is very much a private forum and the users have agreed to the terms of use. Furthermore is this forum moderated. When this forum remove certain words, its actually not censorship, as the essence of the post is not changed or censored. Its simply an expression of the tone, that the forum owners have set for discussions here.

There are other terms for using Youtube.

I would assume that none of those clips are actually public domain. Although that has little to do with the issues we discuss here.

Debating if a moral questions is right or wrong is dangerous ground. Its not possible to judge morale against a fact-sheet. Morale deals with choices and when you choose not to watch such a video, it does not make it a defacto law. Others might choose differently for other reasons.

Nobody if being forced to watch anything. If the video contains a friend, or relative, it almost sure Youtube will remove it on the grounds you mention.

I see no difference between watching WWII gun camera film, or bombing raids, and watching a crash on Youtube. Although I can see the difference for people who recognise the aircraft and perhaps knew the pilot.

Again, I personally prefer to watch aircraft flying, even if I too have seen a few Youtube crash videos. I might find that people who revel in death and destruction are missing certain human emotions, but I can have absolutly no judgement if they are right or wrong, I can only express my own view.

Don’t use your own concept of liberty, as a template for others. An infringement that you don’t feel, might be felt by others, or might set a precedence for further infringements.

Im not an advocate for carnage videos, but Im an advocate of online freedom.

There is a chance, when watching something unspecified, that you will be shocked and appalled. If you are unable to accept that, you should not watch unspecified material.

We simply can’t label everything according to some percieved level of public offence.

Some online communities have used the tag NSFW (Not Safe For Work), when a post might contain something, that might get people into trouble at work. Maybe those with Youtube problems, should ask Youtube to include such a tag on the video clips. That means that you, the viewer, can label something “unsafe”, so that others like yourself can avoid the content.

However, thats a voluntary and no guarantee you will not be offended.

Good points but censorship is a whole new can or worms. For instance, if I use the following words on this forum: ****, ****, ********, **** – there is a very good chance that they’ll be censored yet I can hear them on any football terrace, high street, or movie (I apologise if they’re not censored!). Would you consider this a correct use of censorship simply because this kind of language is likely to cause offence?

The subject of seeing fatal airshow crashes in the public domain for the purpose of entertainment is completely disrespectful to the pilot and my concern is that on a forum that is populated by many airshow ‘consumers’ we’re debating whether it’s right or wrong to see our friends killed over and over again in the name of entertainment.

I take it none of the people who are offended by ‘people dying in aircraft’ have enjoyed “12 o’clock High” then?

Or ever watched a bit of gun camera footage.

Moderators please remove it.

On what grounds?

Moggy
Moderator

sometimes euthanasia would be a good idea for these morons. Unfortunatly they are all over the place.

ouch..i’ve watched the footage..i can’t bear to see this..:eek:

I’m more concerned by “happy slappers” than sad people who post pictures of people dying. Unlike air crashes, those who walk up to complete strangers in the street, then hit and punch them – this with the sole aim of posting footage of their crime on the internet are real scum bags.

We don’t have that problem in the US thanks to widespread ownership of firearms.:cool:

I was sent one link concerning these slapper idiots in the UK tho, in which the slapper picks on some girl & then he & his mate have the absolute stuffing knocked out of them by her martial art boyfriend.. Karma is a bitch 🙂

This thread is as bad as you tube but it wont go away

Moderators please remove it.

Iv’e got to agree, it’s bad taste. If i ever died in a plane crash i certainly wouldn’t want it to be shown on YouTube for entertainment. Why do people want to see a plane crash, why don’t people want to see in the air where it belongs, making people go wow at this amazing machine doing what it’s supposed to do.

😡

Maybe we should have public executions live on TV, maybe set up webcams at road traffic accident blackspots and in intensive care units – it’s a free world afterall… who gives a monkey’s that these are real people? Years ago one particular video production company were offering two versions of the Woodford airshow at which the RR Spitfire crashed – one with and one without the crash – ‘Would Sir like his video with or without carnage’ was Paul Coggan’s vitriolic response and that summed up my own feelings perfectly.
To suggest that those too pussy to watch such material should avoid YouTube is ridiculous – there’s a hell of a lot of really good stuff on there – but what is wrong with YouTube exercising restraint on the grounds of good taste and out of respect for the victims? I don’t see that as an infringement of my own liberty.

Don’t use your own concept of liberty, as a template for others. An infringement that you don’t feel, might be felt by others, or might set a precedence for further infringements.

Im not an advocate for carnage videos, but Im an advocate of online freedom.

There is a chance, when watching something unspecified, that you will be shocked and appalled. If you are unable to accept that, you should not watch unspecified material.

We simply can’t label everything according to some percieved level of public offence.

Some online communities have used the tag NSFW (Not Safe For Work), when a post might contain something, that might get people into trouble at work. Maybe those with Youtube problems, should ask Youtube to include such a tag on the video clips. That means that you, the viewer, can label something “unsafe”, so that others like yourself can avoid the content.

However, thats a voluntary and no guarantee you will not be offended.

Maybe we should have public executions live on TV, maybe set up webcams at road traffic accident blackspots and in intensive care units – it’s a free world afterall… who gives a monkey’s that these are real people? Years ago one particular video production company were offering two versions of the Woodford airshow at which the RR Spitfire crashed – one with and one without the crash – ‘Would Sir like his video with or without carnage’ was Paul Coggan’s vitriolic response and that summed up my own feelings perfectly.
To suggest that those too pussy to watch such material should avoid YouTube is ridiculous – there’s a hell of a lot of really good stuff on there – but what is wrong with YouTube exercising restraint on the grounds of good taste and out of respect for the victims? I don’t see that as an infringement of my own liberty.

not all of them are labeled, you are watching some really nice footage and then…:(

Sorry, but if you are such a sensitive soul, maybe you should stay away from Youtube altogether. You almost make it sound like you are abused by Youtube.

We are all dealing with war material and those who are lucky enough to fly these birds, are dealing with the risk of flying old aircraft. Its very unfortunate that some of these pilots perish during this activity, but thats something that has always been connected with aviation – its not 100% safe.

Having seen 5 fatal accident at airshows i admit i have wanted to see the footage on TV to try and make sense of what i witnessed, But i personally feel that the You tube gore fest of such things is sickening. Sadly death and disaster sell, Thats why we got sites like that about and 24 hour news channels.

I was at Duxford and Biggin Hill respectively when the P-38 and P-63 accidents occured and i can tell you now, You don’t need reminding of such things. But i would point anyone to the fact you can avoid these images on you tube and anywhere else by either not searching for them or not watching them when they appear after a search.

not all of them are labeled, you are watching some really nice footage and then…:(

Peter.

May I ask what was the point of your bold intervention?

It strikes me that some of us posting on this thread are doing so to point out that very fact. That the friends and families of those lost in airshow accidents are seeing videos of their deaths shown on a publicly available site like you tube for nothing more than the purposes of entertainment. I accept the comments that those involved in the operation of such aircraft and accident investigators may well learn from such footage. The question here remains, is it right for such footage to be used for the purpose of entertainment? Furthermore, is it then right for you tube to allow comments to be posted on their site such as those that are there now? I think that’s the issue here.

Regards,

kev35

Youtube has no possible way of filtering the millions of comments made daily. However, every user on Youtube has the possibility of reporting comments made by other users.

There are also certain criteria for postings. While Youtube will accept a plane crash, they are bound by their own policy to delete “Shocking or disgusting content”, which would be detailed photage of human suffering.

If you are offended by content on Youtube, you are invited to report it. If Youtube deems the video, or comment, inappropriate, it will be deleted.

Be advised that your own personal definition of whats inappropriate, might not be shared by the Youtube moderators.

Youtube makes a business of hosting video clips online. They are not inclined to limit their business to a standard moral codex shared by all community users.

Youtube is also a proponent of “online freedom”, which means that the community can post anything thats not directly illegal. Notice that copyright issues are the responsibility of the individual poster, but Youtube will remove protected material, when presented with a take-down notice from the copyright holder.

We might all agree that some comments are rude, sick, or downright idiotic, but Youtube also appeal to the gore culture that respond in this way. Getting personally upset over this, might not be the optimal response.

One of the great things about the net, is the freedom of information that comes with it. Here people can get information, that might not otherwise be available to them locally. This has the ability to create a well informed global community somewhere down the line (we can hope at least).

Trying to limit this freedom, due to a personal perception of moral values, is also forcing these values upon others. You might say, that its not that part of online freedom that needs to be curtailed, but censorship is censorship and be sure that once its in place, this will be used to remove any material that goes against somebodys purpose.

Its akin to saying ” please take this freedom away from us, we are unable to fully understand it”.

I think we must accept a certain level of personal outrage, in order to protect something thats wholly beneficial to the world at large.

I don’t have a problem as I only watch what I want and I am grateful to be able to make my own decision.

I don’t like the comments but you get those sort on anything.

Moral outrage, especially when it is on someone else’s behalf (suffering relatives) is nothing more than censorship of free speech and a ‘politically correct’ way of stifling discussion.

Let us not forget that the purpose of designing aircraft was often for the purpose of maintaining free speech and the right to it and one of the reaons for displaying them is so that we might be reminded of their purpose.

More can be gained by the right of people to post legal footage on you-tube and debate and comment on it at whatever level of mentalilty they posess, than that achieved by censorship.

I may not agree, but everyone has a right to their opinion.

In bad taste

Hi folks;
As i agree footage is needed for the investgation putting it up
for the ignorant to enjoy and comment is beyond the pale;
after watching the Nimrod go down[god rest their souls]
even nowadays seeing old footage in docs is hard once
you know what suffering is involed post crash.
But our love of the air,machines,courage we know there
is a dark side we must face if we are to go to greater
heights.:(

Peter.

May I ask what was the point of your bold intervention?

It strikes me that some of us posting on this thread are doing so to point out that very fact. That the friends and families of those lost in airshow accidents are seeing videos of their deaths shown on a publicly available site like you tube for nothing more than the purposes of entertainment. I accept the comments that those involved in the operation of such aircraft and accident investigators may well learn from such footage. The question here remains, is it right for such footage to be used for the purpose of entertainment? Furthermore, is it then right for you tube to allow comments to be posted on their site such as those that are there now? I think that’s the issue here.

Regards,

kev35

Perhaps, as the initial point of this thread was to ‘slate’ the people who put these clips on various websites thus making more of something than should have been done, it is time to lock it?

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that friends and family members of those killed in the above mentioned aircraft may have access to this forum and we all should keep that in mind when we refer to fatal airshow accidents both on this thread and future ones.
Peter

Lock it?

Perhaps, as the initial point of this thread was to ‘slate’ the people who put these clips on various websites thus making more of something than should have been done, it is time to lock it?