It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true!! 
(Sorry that I don’t know how to make it clearer that the first post was not from you. Pasting a flagged post worked oddly.)
2 Likes
Compared to 99.9% of YouTube content that isn’t restricted? Really?
3 Likes
Maybe Youtube considers it offensive to post copyrighted material.
1 Like
Everyone should report any video with a Crucifix or Jesus on the Cross.
“Graphic Images of Torture”
12 Likes
such dumb ass fuckery is going to be the end of our so-called civilization.
The civilisation to which you refer is already dead. We are now in another, different “civilisation”.
2 Likes
I neglected to watch this powerful montage with Lennon’s powerful song this year until now thanks to this post. I think YouTube has been re-tuning their policies due to Google being fined $170 million last September for violating children’s privacy laws (FTC and COPPA) on YouTube.
4 Likes
Anything that makes me feel bad is bad and should be banned. We can’t expose children to anything except approved Disney characters. Reality itself is inappropriate for minors, and only fantasy, lies, and marketing are permissible.
3 Likes
in case my meaning wasn’t clear, i meant could the person who posted it on youtube contest the rating by youtube. i know with their copyright violations you can contest it if it is incorrect (like a song is in the public domain and wrongly claimed as copyrighted by another user or record company). they will sometimes reverse it if you are right.
If the headline had read “Youtube declares photos of dead and dying children which accompany a John Lennon song to be offensive content” I would not have clicked.
Mission accomplished!
3 Likes
This is actually an excellent example of why the cries to companies to implement higher levels of censorship are going to backfire. Censorship always misses. Not only will it target stuff you don’t wait it to target due to having a different opinion on politics or taste, but even if the censorship is being fully employed it perfect alignment with your political, social, and taste ideals, it is still going to miss on occasion.
Our social ills are not going to be solved with censorship. There is certainly a place for censorship in terms of keeping areas “nice”. I’m glad BoingBoing will delete the trolls and the spammers. I just don’t harbor the delusion that that BoingBoing censoring trolls is fixing trolling; it’s just making this a nice place to be by kicking out the rif-raff. Censorship on social media is the same. Censorship isn’t going to fix any social ills, it just sweeps them under the rug. Sometimes it’s nice to sweep thing under the rug because then the room looks more pleasant, but it didn’t fix anything. “Keeping them from talking” in a world that spews communication avenues out of every orifice just doesn’t work.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I suspect it is something a lot harder than giving social media companies a set of criteria by which to censor, and them doing it. It’s probably something ugly and hard, like everyone needing to learn how to communicate and deal with each other better, and reaching out personally to change hard and broken people. That’s basically an impossible thing to organize, which is why it feels so good to pretend that the answer is convincing social media companies to employ some mystical perfectly targeted censorship that filters out the bad, leaves the good, isn’t oppressive, doesn’t miss, doesn’t get re-purposed for crushing stuff you like… and of course makes people actually better.
While I disagree with most everything you’ve said, I appreciate how eloquently you stated your arguments. This would probably be a better topic for continuing this discussion:
2 Likes
Is it offensive because Allen Ginsberg thought of it first?
He said or wrote something about simply declaring the war over in 1966… Phil Ochs organized two War is Over rallies, one in LA, the other in New York City, in 1967. He also wrote “The War is Over” and that was on record in 1968.
But this is drowned out by the Beatle. I’m not sure if he thought if it himself, or just amplified what Allan and Phil did.
Of course, the Bed-In here in Montreal fifty years ago included Allen, but somehow no obvious connection is made. I’ve read, but can’t remem er where, that Jerry Rubin went to John Lennon to get him involved, but I’m not sure when that happened.
Of course, Phil Ochs organized one last War is Over rally, in May or maybe June of 1975, after the fall of Saigon actually put an end to the Vietnam war.
Not to be snarky, but what I wonder is how AI can be smarter than its creators. Obvs., an algorithm can – does – work faster but how can it work better? Like here.
I wonder what Yoko thinks. She’s still got clout.
She was here in Montreal earlier this year, in conjunction with an exhibit about the 50th anniversary of the Bed-In.
People too often forget “The Ballad of John and Yoko”, which details more of the peace campaign than “Give Peace a Chance”.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
