Talk:Criticism of YouTube

People with autism can be very sensitive to things that may seem strange to other people. For over a year and a half they have been ignoring hunger strike threats and #autismrights tweets regarding the fact that they refuse to acknowledge a very easy to fix issue regarding the fact the miniplayer can be reprogrammed to not collect personal data and the fact that an extremely annoying message appears every single time that you click back on a video that has it disabled. I'm sorry if it looks like I'm WP:NOTHERE but people keep ignoring me whenever I try to raise awareness of this issue anywhere else.

Most viewed
If you click on 'most viewed all time' on Youtube, you get a bunch of videos which obviously do not have the most views on YouTube... essentially the site is lying to the users... would this be appropriate to put in the Youtube criticism article? 198.53.41.16 (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just rechecked and it seems you tube is reporting the proper figures as of now... but I'm sure they were putting out incorrect information in the past, o well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.41.16 (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that websites that supply software for downloading flvs are "pirate" websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.145.18 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin and rewrite
This page originates from "Copyright infringement and controversial material" section from the YouTube page. As it mostly summarized critics of YouTube it was renamed and split. Please help revamping the article into a full critic point of view. Thank you!--Kozuch (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Censorship
Should censorship be added as a criticism of YouTube as there is a large anti YouTube censorship movement. Examples are those who criticize religion while pointing to YouTubes double standards that allow videos of US soldiers being killed and religious extremists posting hate speeches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom4korea (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism videos
No mention of all the pro-terrorism propaganda on YouTube? Seems more prevalent than the neo-Nazi clips.— DMCer ™  15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Colgate vs poop
No mention of this famous case against poop? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.146.121 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nothin' but the breeze and the waves". -Facebook (Pirate translation) RocketMaster (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be added, the world should know about the battle between youtube poopers and the neo-nazi terrorist group, colgate toothpaste!--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Download tools
Does actually stating specific brands not constitute advertising of illegal products? Citizen89 (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the section as it doesn't appear to have any specific relevance to criticism of YouTube from a copyright perspective, yet I don't understand how they are "illegal" as you state.... -- Zim Zala Bim talk  22:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

They may not be illegal as far as the law goes but if it were allowed do you not think Youtube would of thought of that? The fact remains that the copyright to such material belongs to either the creator of the video or an external 3rd party and if they have not given permission for it to be copied and downloaded then it should not be permitted. The fact that people can use Youtube in this way is an obvious criticism of Youtube itself. --Citizen89 (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyright infringment
Recently, several users (Most notably PlayitBogart) have had their accounts banned after showing footage of a set video game, (In his case GTA4).I think this is notable enough to mention becuase It was considered a blow to many fans of his videos, which number in the tens of thousands by his subscribe and viewed awards. Others have been banned. This I know can be sourced so mabye someone can add it, but for some reason, someone vandalized a user page and got me banned so a certain Admin continues to revert my edits stating they are vandalism, and I am simply to lazy to log in to my account. So I wont do it.72.138.216.89 (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Add Top 10 subscribed "The Angry Video Game Nerd" to the list of casualties. Now the only highly popular game reviewer that remains on the site completely unscathed is Chris Bores, The Irate Gamer. He also just happens to be a YouTube Partner. 75.66.233.162 (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's no longer banned... TanookiMario257 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of neutrality tag
I removed the neutrality tag added by User:Bflorsheim because no viable reason was given for its addition. The reason given was I know it's about criticism, but some of this is questionable. This is too vague and any specific issues should have been raised on the talk page at the time of the tagging. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Abusive users section
I gave this section a cleanup although it could still do with a lot of work and some citations. The issue of offensive comments and messages is a very real problem for YouTube, as anyone who visits the site regularly knows. This is something that the article should cover, although the section needs improvement. -- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we even mention this?
"However, blocked videos can still be viewed by changing the URL"

If YouTube has a legal basis for blocking videos by country, it seems like we shouldn't mention how to bypass it. No matter how totally obvious it is. Enoktalk 11:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

General disorganization of the site
Has any reliable source pointed out how poorly organized YouTube is? E.g. their tag system is a joke, and categories are far too broad. A video on David Attenborough is placed in something as general as 'education', while the tags are only of 'david' and 'attenborough'. Why don't they just copy Wikimedia's system and have a Category:David Attenborough (we don't actually have one but that's irrelevant)? Sometimes I feel the same way about Wikipedia, but at least I can fix things myself here. One shouldn't be able to think of improvements to a site as easily as one can for YouTube. Richard001 (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Seriously. I agree with you. YouTube has some serious disorganization issues. As far as the tag system goes, all I can say is that it is completely useless because users don't use it for what it was intended. They just use it to try to promote their videos with irrelevant tags. Goldhunt (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Foot Fetish Videos
I was wondering if it was OK to start a section in this article about YouTube's removal of foot fetish videos, both Copyright and UnCopyright. I'm thinking it would go something like this:

"Youtube has removed videos that might contain Foot fetish Content. These videos are of both Female and Male Feet, but mostly Female Feet. There is controversy because while these videos may be interpreted by most people as Sexual in Nature, some may not interpret it that way. Also there is controversy, because Youtube removes more videos with females in them than videos with males in them, possibly fearing a lawsuit by Homosexuals with  Foot fetishes." Joeloliv8 03:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also feminist criticism of YouTube not removing reported fetish content that often also contains bits of nudity for the purpose of sexual gratification, upskirting and filming women without their consent which normalizes this kind of harassment towards women and sexual objectification of women. Most of those videos, if not all, overwhelmingly contain women being sexually objectified. Moreover, the target audience as well as the content creators of such videos are almost exclusively men. Some critics say the videos are not deleted or striked despite violating YouTube Community Guidelines because people who review such content are biased due to having the same agenda as the video creators and their audiences because they're also disproportionally represented by men.

Animal cruelty
I think it can be argued that videos of animal cruelty can promote animal welfare by shocking people. The article makes it sound as if the only significant viewpoint is that animal cruelty should be hidden away from sight. --149.4.211.210 (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and to stop accusations of complete ignorance, and POV the other way, I will also acknowledge that there's a significant concern about allowing animal cruelty videos because people would then intentionally perform animal cruelty to get views on Youtube. My point isn't that we should promote the positive aspects of allowing cruelty videos over the negative, but that they should be presented proportional to the strength of their human support. In other words, someone should get sources for both sides. --149.4.211.210 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You should probably edit this section. The "source" for this part: "Some of the videos show obviously deliberate acts of cruelty: for example, one video shows a cat being doused in petrol before being set on fire.[4]" doesn't say ANYTHING at all about a cat set on fire. It speaks of lions killing a giraffe and a python killing a goat and such. And also, the text about the dog should be reviewed. At least add that the video WAS taken down about the dog and the Marine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.56.21 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fair Use
Should there be something about how YouTube also removes clips that would fall under Fair-use, while still claiming copyright infringement? Kyprosサマ (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does youtube do almost nothing to stop the hate?
And most of the time, they make no response. I have reported multiple profiles that advocate the death and hatred of groups of people, and youtube never does anything about it. I get no responses to any of my reportings, and the people still spew out the hate. And then, some users actually hate on groups of people that are not covered by the "protected groups" action, which means that if they spew hate and death on a group that's not covered, it's not hate speech. And even then it's nearly impossible to adequately report people with such a small character limit given to you. All of this needs to added to the article.

Difficulty reporting. No response to reports. No action taken. Loopholes in protection system. Multiple account exploitation. --68.207.156.253 (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)Reggie Playing to the gallery by not removing even the most bigoted videos of the US Culture War. Sioraf (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why should they be motivated to regulate anything? The more users on the site, the more YouTube is financially worth. Why would any CEO want to put a damper on that?99.150.202.187 (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

YouTube really can't stop the hate precisely because the majority of ppl making comments on YouTube (at least as far as I have seen) are incredibly ignorant, uneducated, spiteful, hateful, and moronic young people who have no conception of the sort of hate that they are proliferating among ppl of other nations, religions, races, or political or sexual orientation (this goes for both left AND right wing ppl). Anyway, considering the limited amount of characters they allow you to use, is it any surprise that very few intelligent things are said? Every time I go on YouTube (especially to a video that involves politics in some way) I walk away full of hatred and anger at the sorts of garbage that's out there (even to the point of almost stereotyping all ppl of a certain nation/group as being like the creep who's awful comment I just read). Ultimately I don't give in to this, but I have to believe many others out there do. In the interests of world peace, perhaps, YouTube should be outlawed (or at least get rid of the response area).99.150.202.187 (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Copyrighted video at YouTube.png
The image File:Copyrighted video at YouTube.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --17:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible addition
This coalition channel and these videos  d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.213.52 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources...
Does anyone even check the sources for this stuff? Citation 36 goes to a pretty blatantly racist/anti-Semitic site. The site itself links to "revisionist history" which has a book about the "myth of 6 million" with a picture of Hitler on the cover. Seriously guys, seriously? And 2/3 of the remaining citations for that "fact" are in Czech. I'm going to go waaaaay out on a limb here and say no one bothered to fact check let alone click those sites. And the last citation on that "fact" is from a pretty biased blog "source".

I don't have the patience to fix all of it, but I wanted to voice my concern over the lack of integrity present in this wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.232.134 (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

HuluTube
Use The HuluTube thing in this article. It's becoming such a big deal now. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
Porn Links and Other Links In Comments: Users will often advertise websites (often websites that offer porn). This also increases the potential of a user getting a virus on his/her computer after visiting a malicious website.

Chain-Mail: A very annoying thing on YouTube is chain-letters. Users will post a message in the comments or send it to another user's mail box. Such messages are intended to persuade the spreading of the message to other users through threats (often of physical harm).

Goldhunt (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

New Beta Channel design
I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but I've been noticing some heavy critisicm against YouTube by the users over the team's decision to replace the current channel design with the new Beta design starting July 15, 2009. Approximately 50%-75% of users have also threatened to close their accounts the night before the mandatory switch. If anyone else knows more about this and would like to add a sidenote to this paragraph, feel free to do so.--70.240.189.233 (talk) 20:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Chris


 * This issue may not be big enough, but will see. 71.182.229.224 (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's big enough!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.144.151.36 (talk) 04:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue is massive. The people currently employed to "improve" the interface (under the direction of one "Brian Glick") are tearing the heart and soul out of the site, piece by piece. As far as I'm concerned, the name "YouTube" is now virtually a misnomer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw-NILysH1w

Toloatzin (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Onoes. The website owners changed a minor design aspect of their website! Alert the media! Sceptre (talk) 11:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They've done a great deal more than that, as the comments and ratings for the video that I linked to make perfectly clear. Toloatzin (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Censorship Movement
Probably the biggest criticism YouTube is going through right now is how they're censoring users. In fact, it's getting so bad that some of their more popular users are moving websites and even taking it so far as to create their own websites. Anyway, if I can do it (because I might have a few people who would be willing to help), would anyone have a problem if I created a whole sperate article for the Censorship section? If anyone objects, I could probably just expand on the Censorship section, but there would be a lot of mention of certain users and their videos. Xhaoz Talk  • Contribs  16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An addendum: Okay, so here's what's been going on lately. A user known as TheAmazingAtheist just finished his two-week suspension, and many of his fans and friends have had enough. There's somewhat of an "Anti-Censorship Movement" going on right now, and there are at least six people that are majorly involved in it. Should this be included in the article, and if so, would videos that some of these users make be considered reliable sources? Xhaoz  Talk  &bull; Contribs  17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I say leave the videos alone, the search results page looks blanked out enough already.. Did you notice there are no sponge-bob episodes whatsoever on youtube?? --Iateyourgranny (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Flagging system
Removing the 'Flagging system' since it has no sources and makes broad claims such as 'majority of video owners' and criticizes moderators without any backing. part fo the complaint is about the UI. This is just someone's complaint and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. 173.109.215.74 (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They Own Uploaded Videos
YouTube holds the rights to uploaded videos forever, even if they are deleted, according to this: 70.30.100.68 (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC) did you even read it?! it says "For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions."74.36.182.143 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

ADL claim and sources
The paragraph complaining about YouTube censorship and the ADL uses a couple of non reliable sources such as a blog site and indymedia. The one RS in it is the jerusalem post newspaper website however that link does not contain any criticism of youtube as claimed in this article. This is point of view pushing. This article is full of sources that really shouldn't be used here.BlueSal (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've given the article a general cleanup tag, which it needs. There are some WP:NPOV and WP:COATRACK issues as well.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Indymedia and a blog site are not sources for an encyclopedia. The third is a good source, but the citation does not say what this paragraph claims

Censorship claim using Indymedia
A section was added claiming censorship based on a blog and indymedia. A third citation wsa used but it doesn't say censorship. BobYelena (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't added, it was restored. Vexorg (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

ABS-CBN?
The part which says ABS-CBN does not allow some stuff on YouTube has been "citation needed for a while. Can someone prove this? (as in finding sources?) 119.94.153.205 (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference Query
We are a group working on this article as part of a coursework submission. We edited it recently on 22/03/2010 under the IP address 130.159.17.136. Recently the article was reverted to its original form. The problem seemed to be related to verifiability issues in the referencing. We are not disputing this, but as we are not experienced Wikipedia users, we would appreciate any feedback on both our version of the page and previous edit. What do you think could be done to improve the quality of the article?130.159.17.136 (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"False Copyright claims"
I removed the last part that states "Notable victims of this act include Hellsing920, NintendoCapriSun, and BigAl2k6."

It's clearly done to promote the users listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.97.75 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this would need sourcing anyway.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

This section is confusing to me as it doesn't explain the "false" part about this copyright claim nor does it explain how YouTube dealt with it. How was the copyright claim false? Were the named users, "Chuggaaconroy" and etc., the ones falsely claiming copyright, or was it the others that got their videos taken down? I'm guessing it was the others, but still, did YouTube take down the videos without having any repercussions? It seems like there should be more to this story. Eroubis (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuggaaconroy was a victim. The flagger claimed to own pokemon, Chuggaaconroy's voice, and other rediculous claims. Youtube didn't bother checking the flags for validicy, and promptly banned chuggaa, ncs, ect. Youtube has since solved the problem, how I do not know. And yes, the victims got their account back. And hopefully CONJOPI, the person/persons who did this is/are in jail.--Chaos of Air, ONLINE (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wael Abbas
"The Egyptian Wael Abbas was the first blogger to win the Knight International Journalism Award [22] but YouTube suspended his account because it showed police brutality, voting fraud and anti-government demonstrations, which were flagged up as inappropriate content [23]."

This sounds preposterous to the point that I assume something is wrong or half the story is left out. It comes across like "This guy is awesome but YouTube censored important stuff because they don't like it". Source 23 is dead though. Anyone have anything else?Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AFD
✅

I would like to send this article to AFD again with the following reason for deletion "An indiscriminate ragbag of unrelated complaints under a title which frames the treatment to be implicitly hostile contrary to core policy." The previous AFD for this article did not result in consensus and the latest dispute may have led to some progress. Deletion would also tend resolve the dispute per the Gordian knot. Note that Criticism of The New York Times was deleted on similar grounds so there is good precedent. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AFD created with placeholder text. Please complete the nomination yourself. CIreland (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just closed the AFD as "keep". The AFD tag needs to be removed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Youtube partners
Youtube partners have been known to use missleading tags thumbnails and sub 4 subing. Also Begging for thumbs up comments and using open ended comments. I refrain from detail due to a fear of a bias view. For instance in a Shane dawson video does size matter. What do you think of first is that even in the video no. Take a look at fred's videos most of which never include begging for thumbs up missleading thumbnails or anything of that nature. Simply what we know fred for is in his videos. Also most of the videos remain on youtube because they know that they are making money from there bait and switch tactics and openly encourage it. Also flaging can be disabled????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.37.180 (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Users that record themselves playing video games and watching tv shows
Why do users record themselves playing video games and watching tv shows? that doesnt make any sense. it would be that questionable if you see a person who uploaded a video on youtube recording him or herself playing a video. when your on youtube alot of people have recorded themselves playing video games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.147.216 (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

About Users
Malicious users always upload themselves watching TV shows and playing video games. I know this is a violation. Maybe YouTube is considered as the worst website ever.--99.73.250.158 (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
Should there be a section about the companies on Youtube who falsely claim copyright on videos they don't own.

For example the "Ministry of Sound" claims copyright, both audio and video, on the Eudard Hil song "I Am Glad, Cause I'm Finally Returning Back Home", AKA Trololo, eventhough it was a Soviet state owned channel which the copyright belongs to the sucessor governments of the USSR. 71.58.198.190 (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Youtube Censorship
The | Criticism of Google page has a whole section on Youtube pulling videos its editors don't like, but there's none of that information here. I move that we transfer some of that material over, or least provide a "see also." Any suggestions?Kant66 (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC) I completely agree. There Should be a link or some reference point to the aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.56.21 (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, it looks like most of that material was removed anyway for undue weight, so I'll transfer it over here. Kant66 (talk) 18:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)