Talk:Criticism of YouTube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.... --ZimZalaBim 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)