Issuu on Google+

YouTube Social Responsibilities BY DESTINY FRADL

Last week popular video sharing site YouTube got hit by a so called ‘video attack’ from a group targeting it for often banning music videos. It’s true that YouTube often can’t be reached from some countries, or just deletes music videos that don’t fall within their agreement to copyrights. However, the attackers might have gone a little bit too far. The videos the attackers uploaded were of a pornographic nature, specifically targeted to shock a younger audience. YouTube is currently accessible to all ages, although it monitors most uploading activity, it couldn’t exactly hold back a large amount of uploads at a single time. Unfortunately, according to what we could read from comments posted before the videos were removed, some younger children posted confusing messages asking what they were watching. Cunningly, the attackers targeted the younger audience by luring them in with deceptive titles like live music from famous musicians popular with children. Once they started viewing the children would find out that the video they expected was of a much different category and left the kids indirectly harmed psychologically. At least, we presume they have. What the attackers, who call 4chan their home, claimed was that pornographic material is easily found anyway anywhere on the web. They argued kids would find their way into seeing that sort of material anyway after going on any random search engine. I can’t say I can agree with the attackers that this sort of a stunt will really make much of a difference. First of all you’re targeting the wrong people; the attackers’ problem lies with YouTube’s management and not their younger audience. I see that this might be a

shocking method to grab YouTube’s attention, but to fight for rights to keep music online it’s not a fair price to pay for the kids. Showing them images that might affect their childhood in a negative way is unfair, and especially when these kids are sniped like this with 4chan’s deceptive strategies. To them it might not mean much because they have matured and have forgotten how impressionable young minds can be. It’s not necessarily going to affect all kids in a bad way, but you can never be sure if one of the children doesn’t have a history of sexual abuse. It’s the right to choose that is taken away, these kids are exposed regardless and are what we could almost call lured by predators to be fed on. What kind of a human being do you have to be to wrongfully attack young people’s minds for personal gain? Just to listen to some songs? Music is nice, but it’s never going to be more important than our next generation. YouTube is a very large platform, where young people are potentially being exposed to traumatic images. I think it’s best to say YouTube better step up their game, because it has not only a commercial but also a social responsibility towards our youngsters. It helps kids find interests, learn new things, see new things but it can’t do that without a proper safety net.


Youtube social responsibilities