4chan, eBaum's World carpet bombing YouTube with porn videos(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
4chan, eBaum's World carpet bombing YouTube with porn videos
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009/05/4chan-ebaumsworld-carpet-bombing-youtube-with-porn-videos.ars
5 comments
I would be tempted to agree, except that I know somewhere there's a ConOps person who has to remove all that porn. And given that ConOps always has more to do than time to do it, this is probably in addition to all the other stuff her regular job requires. Remember that there's a person behind all those abuse complaints - somebody just had a very rough day.
It's like how I always thought it was fine to scrape big companies' websites, until I'm the one that has to carry the pager. It's all fun and games until someone loses a weekend.
(I really shouldn't complain though, considering that I dragged spez into fixing an XSRF vulnerability in Reddit on a Sunday morning by exploiting it in a very public manner. If there's a God in charge of overseeing nefarious hijinks on websites, I think I've got more karmic retribution coming.)
It's like how I always thought it was fine to scrape big companies' websites, until I'm the one that has to carry the pager. It's all fun and games until someone loses a weekend.
(I really shouldn't complain though, considering that I dragged spez into fixing an XSRF vulnerability in Reddit on a Sunday morning by exploiting it in a very public manner. If there's a God in charge of overseeing nefarious hijinks on websites, I think I've got more karmic retribution coming.)
Or you can look at it this way - if no one ever uploaded porn to YouTube, that ConOps person wouldn't have a job. :p
OK, OK, that falls just short of saying crime is OK because it keeps cops employed. But realistically, if there's any outrage over this, it won't be because a couple of YouTube employees had a bad day.
OK, OK, that falls just short of saying crime is OK because it keeps cops employed. But realistically, if there's any outrage over this, it won't be because a couple of YouTube employees had a bad day.
I’d like to know if the "flag" function works out for this. Since it’s a community, and a big one, there shouldn’t be one who looses a weekend but the community which solves this by itself.
They should (temporarily?) disable the need to register to be able to flag a video.
They should (temporarily?) disable the need to register to be able to flag a video.
I would imagine that there's some sort of manual oversight to flagging things - otherwise, wouldn't 4chan just start an uproar by massive flagging of popular videos?
I could be totally wrong though - I'm not really familiar with YouTube, and it'd be just like Google to automate something like this.
I could be totally wrong though - I'm not really familiar with YouTube, and it'd be just like Google to automate something like this.
Part of their "operation" is that they are flagging tons of popular videos that have nothing wrong with them.
[deleted]
Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public. So one is OK to show (public), and the other is not (it's private).
Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way.
And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex.
Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way.
And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex.
Sorry, that's just wrong on so many levels - I hope you're just playing devil's advocate here?
moe, I don't see you arguing against ars's thesis in any way except insinuating about the motives that led to his/her words. I have just downvoted you and upvoted him/her specifically to discourage this style of argument.
Well, I'm sorry, I somehow figured the problems with his "thesis" were obvious.
The votes (his thesis is at +5 currently) scare me a bit because at least those 4 people either agree with or voted without understanding his nonsensical assertions.
So, let's go through his points one by one.
Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public. So one is OK to show (public), and the other is not (it's private).
Our every day life is equally driven by sexual and violent influences on many levels. Declaring one to be public and the other to be private just makes no sense. And if you insisted on making this nonsensical distinction then you'd much rather come to the opposite conclusion: sex is more public than violence, at least here in the western world.
Just compare how often you are exposed to visible violence versus how often you are exposed to sexual stimulation (consider how many half-naked girls are presented to you on billboards when you walk down a street).
Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way.
All kids expirience both, sex and violence. Those two are closely related and easily the two biggest psychological drivers that keep us human beings going. This paragraph is exemplary for why I originally refrained from replying indepth. How do you even counter such a statement? It's not just wrong on the factual level, it's also a very strange way to look at these things. How does real-life violence justify showing it on TV (apart from the news)? How does the claimed lack of real-life sexual influences justify "banning" it from TV?
It's just meaningless to argue at this level - either way.
And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex.
Same thing here. I still hope that he was playing devil's advocate and not seriously trying to imply that the display of graphic violence is somehow better or more acceptable than the graphic display of sex.
The votes (his thesis is at +5 currently) scare me a bit because at least those 4 people either agree with or voted without understanding his nonsensical assertions.
So, let's go through his points one by one.
Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public. So one is OK to show (public), and the other is not (it's private).
Our every day life is equally driven by sexual and violent influences on many levels. Declaring one to be public and the other to be private just makes no sense. And if you insisted on making this nonsensical distinction then you'd much rather come to the opposite conclusion: sex is more public than violence, at least here in the western world.
Just compare how often you are exposed to visible violence versus how often you are exposed to sexual stimulation (consider how many half-naked girls are presented to you on billboards when you walk down a street).
Because all kids experience violence, perhaps not at the same level as a tv show, but they experience it. Sex on the other hand is not that way.
All kids expirience both, sex and violence. Those two are closely related and easily the two biggest psychological drivers that keep us human beings going. This paragraph is exemplary for why I originally refrained from replying indepth. How do you even counter such a statement? It's not just wrong on the factual level, it's also a very strange way to look at these things. How does real-life violence justify showing it on TV (apart from the news)? How does the claimed lack of real-life sexual influences justify "banning" it from TV?
It's just meaningless to argue at this level - either way.
And related to above kids may not experience, but they do see "stronger" levels of violence in the world - because it's public. Again, not so with sex.
Same thing here. I still hope that he was playing devil's advocate and not seriously trying to imply that the display of graphic violence is somehow better or more acceptable than the graphic display of sex.
I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent. There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
I think his point was that violence is innate in children, whereas sexuality is mostly absent.
The kind of violence that you see on TV is no more innate in children than the kind of sexuality that you see there.
There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own.
Invalid assertion. The abstract concepts of violence that are innate in us primates at early age have absolutely nothing to do with the message ("violence is okay and an accepted social tool") that you commonly get exposed to on mass media.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
So you're okay with exposing your 8-year old to violent media but not okay with exposing him to sexually explicit media?
Let's look at this using your own observations: Violence is innate in children, sexuality is mostly absent. This means the child will mostly ignore the sexual content (it can't relate, is simpy not interested) but will process the violence in one way or another (because even a child has concepts of "power", "superiority", "fear" etc.).
Maybe think again, maybe even pick up a book on the subject.
The kind of violence that you see on TV is no more innate in children than the kind of sexuality that you see there.
There's no point in sheltering little boys from violent media because they're quite violent on their own.
Invalid assertion. The abstract concepts of violence that are innate in us primates at early age have absolutely nothing to do with the message ("violence is okay and an accepted social tool") that you commonly get exposed to on mass media.
By contrast, sex isn't on the typical 8-year-old's mind, and probably shouldn't be.
So you're okay with exposing your 8-year old to violent media but not okay with exposing him to sexually explicit media?
Let's look at this using your own observations: Violence is innate in children, sexuality is mostly absent. This means the child will mostly ignore the sexual content (it can't relate, is simpy not interested) but will process the violence in one way or another (because even a child has concepts of "power", "superiority", "fear" etc.).
Maybe think again, maybe even pick up a book on the subject.
I think this is the proper argument:
ars is saying society's view makes sense "Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public." The public/private split, if it were true, would be due to said society's views. That's circular reasoning. Also, the split isn't valid. It'd be great if privacy wholly prevented violence.
That's not much fun though... I prefer funny:
ars is saying society's view makes sense "Because sex is a private activity, and violence is public." The public/private split, if it were true, would be due to said society's views. That's circular reasoning. Also, the split isn't valid. It'd be great if privacy wholly prevented violence.
That's not much fun though... I prefer funny:
Taking life? OK!
Making life? Oh No![deleted]
Waking Life? Interesting idea, Ok movie.I think it's pretty funny as well, but my 5yo won't be using youtube for a while until I'm sure it's mostly clear!
Something about a 5yo using YouTube at all just seems strange to me. Do parents really allow their young children to do that?
Think of the kittens!
There is some truly adorable and precious content on YouTube which is totally appropriate for small children.
There is some truly adorable and precious content on YouTube which is totally appropriate for small children.
Is eBaum's World actually involved, or is this just another one of those times when 4channers claim to be from eBaums world?
Why is it against the terms of service anyway?
Really? Uploading this with misleading titles/tags is OK by you?
To be fair, most of the videos on Youtube, or at least the popular ones, AFAICT, have misleading, spammy tags. I'm surprised Google STILL hasn't made a very major cleanup or instituted obvious procedures like: "A VIDEO SHOULD NOT HAVE MORE THAN 20 TAGS".
Yes, long term something like this would make YouTube unusable, and would certainly do significant harm to the company, even if to no one else.
And yes, I'm aware that plenty of people do consider such content potentially harmful, but I'd like to see any studies to this effect. My personal view is that (North American?) society is strangely prudish about porn (which isn't going anywhere - why stick your head in the sand) while being remarkably comfortable with violence. This is why I say that, in my view, this prank doesn't actually hurt anyone.
Anyway, I'm sure this will be controversial, and that there are aspects I'm not thinking of. Overall though - funny prank.