YouTube Censorship

We have arrived in a technological world. Almost everything relates to the technology. For example, when we feel bored, we can go to the Internet to search for some funny videos. We can know different cultures from other countries from the Internet. Also, if we have something that we want to share with other people, we can upload it to the Internet. Three PayPal employees created YouTube, which is a famous website around the world that people can upload videos onto or get information from (Wikipedia). For the normal users, they can watch most videos on the sites. For the registered users, they are allowed to upload videos. The Internet is an open area that everybody can access easily. Although we can upload our videos freely, not all of the videos can be shared properly with everyone, or even in every country. So, censorship issues in YouTube are controversial topics on the Internet. According to Nystedt (2008), YouTube has been blocked by China because China wanted to stop the spread of the video that showed the riots in Tibet. On the other hand, YouTube provides videos to satisfy people. Also, people have rights to share videos with other people or refuse to watch those (Bursey, 2008). In fact, YouTube censorship now has became an important issue in society.

YouTube should have its own standard regulation to censor videos, because YouTube is an open website that people around the world can access. YouTube should not be affected by other countries that have blocked the sites to change its censorship standard.

First, violent or sexual videos may affect society and children’ growth. According to Hopkins (2007), YouTube had removed a series of music videos from Taiwan. These music videos included something that might be derogatory toward Taiwanese women. These kinds of videos directly influence our society, so YouTube decided to remove them. In another case, a murder happened in Finland. YouTube had allowed this video that was shown on the site because everybody had a right to know what happened (Sandoval, 2007). Why, of the two videos, was one video removed and another shown on the site? YouTube might have its own standard. Although the murder video might influence children’ growth, parents could prohibit their children to searching for these kinds of videos if they needed to. They should not require YouTube to remove it, because other people have rights to know what happens around the world.

Second, the videos insult religions; it may cause the controversial problems around the world. According to Gaijinbiker (2006), YouTube got rid of a video that contains the criticism of Islam. In order to avoid controversy, YouTube removed the video that might cause the disagreement. People should respect all religions although they had disagreed with some religions. YouTube is a website that provides everybody to share their video. It is not a place that wants to make people argue.

Third, YouTube might be blocked in a few countries. According to Schroeder (2007), some countries have decided to protect their citizens from the sharing horrors videos by blocking the site, such as Iran, Morocco, Thailand, Turkey, Iraq, Brazil, Australia (in schools), China, and India. Some countries were afraid that the horrors videos might influence their citizens. In Victoria, Australia, YouTube has been blocked in schools, in order to protect children. Different countries have different standard censorship tools for the sites. They should not require all websites to follow their regulation. However, YouTube could have its own standard of censorship for videos. It should not be forced by every country. If other countries have any doubts for videos that were showed on YouTube, they could block the site or prohibit people from accessing it. They should not generate any controversy for the site, because people from other countries have rights to what happens around the world.

For the opponents, they said YouTube was unfair to get rid of their videos, or that YouTube could not provide videos that are too sensitive. However, these problems are difficult to balance. YouTube must have their standard censorship tools. It should not follow every country, because YouTube provides videos for people around the world and does not provide for a few countries or for personal use only.

In conclusion, YouTube can use their standard censorship tools to censor videos that people upload. It does not have to follow every country’s regulation. If parents feel that the violence or sexuality is too much, they can disallow their children to watch it. When people upload any videos about religion, they should have their ethic and responsibility for the videos. If a country feels the site that is not suitable for their citizens, they can just block the site. However, people have rights to know what happens in the world.

Reference:

Bursey, A. (2008, March 22). YouTube censorship no laughing matter. TelegraphJournal.com. Retrieved March 24, 2008, from http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/magazine/article/246083#

Gaijinbiker (2006, October 5). Selective Censorship on YouTube. RidingSun.com. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.ridingsun.com/posts/1159985048.shtml

Hopkins, M. (2007, November 25). More Hypocritical YouTube Censorship. Mashable.com. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://mashable.com/2007/11/25/more-hypocritical-youtube-censorship/

Nystedt, D. (2008, March 17). Google News, YouTube blocked in China amid Tibet riots. InfoWorld.com. Retrieved March 27, 2008, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17Google-News-YouTube-blocked-in-China-amid-Tibet-riots_1.html

Sandoval, G. (2007, November 9). Should YouTube Play the Censor and Sentinel. CNet News.com. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.news.com/Should-YouTube-play-the-censor-and-sentinel/2100-1025_3-6217712.html

Schroeder, S. (2007, May 30). List of Countries that Banned YouTube. Mashable.com. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://mashable.com/2007/05/30/youtube-bans/

YouTube. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved April 10, 2008, from http://en.wikipedia.org/

Zeller, T. (2006, October 9). A Slippery Slope of Censorship at YouTube. The New York Times. Retrieved April 6, 2008, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/09/technology/09link.html?ex=1318046400&en=e311caef3c3cf222&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss