What has this world come to?

[Tractorhead 9,064]

1 hour ago, 953 nut said:

To me censorship is the first step in taking control of a person, a group or a nation. If the information they receive is only the information you want them to receive then you have altered their ability to see alternative points of view. Do this frequently and a fear of stating alternate points of view will take over the mind and you are now controlling their thoughts and mindset. Many authoritarian governments have done this very successfully.

I don't think this is the case with YouTube's censorship. They just have a team of attorneys advising them that stupid people who don't know to walk and chew gum at the same time will try unsuccessfully to repeat the daring deeds that have been posted by others. "If an accomplished athlete with years of training can do this or that then so can they!" If it ends in tragedy then sue YouTube.

 

In parts i agree Richard,

except the part that this idiot‘s have the ability to sue a mediaprovider. 🤪

They ( in this case Youtube) give them only a Platform to show things on Video - no more no less.

What a person do with or on that Platform is in his own responsibility.

Childporn and crime must be banned immediately, there is absolute no discussion about it imho.

 

So if any Brainfree try to do dangerous things also without any needed Skill

and he had an accident while doing it he is self responsible for his own Decicion to do that.

Nobody told him he must do it or repeat that, neither Youtube.
So things will be solved by itself.
Maybe we should Call it AIR (Automatic Idiot Reduction)

 

A simple Warning banner or reminder would be for such situations ok in my opinion,

but why must they remove videos? That is definitely Censoring for my understanding.

 - btw, i love your comparation of the idiot who chew gum and walk same time. - 😂

 

You can see some of them anytime in different situations.
That also answers why a label must be on a Microwaveoven „don‘t put a Baby or a Pet inside“.
And this is not a national phenomen, it is definitely international.

 

Here we have a simple first Paragraph of Streetrules that means in simple Words:
„Everyone has to be considerate of others on the road to not bother them more as urgently required.“
If all would respect only that §1 of our Road rulez, no other rules are needed.
No Trafficsigns is needed, no Trafficlight is needed and no further rules be needed.
Guess why we have this all.🤪
 

[WheelHorse520H 708]

4 minutes ago, Tractorhead said:

A simple Warning banner or reminder would be for such situations ok in my opinion,

but why must they remove videos? That is definitely Censoring for my understanding.

I've seen some videos on how to fix a certain issue with a car and at the beginning some of them (more or less) say "your responsible if your car crushes you" why isn't it the same for videos with kids.

[Pullstart 62,839]

I *believe* all my minors and equipment videos that “they think” violates their policies have been taken down.  If anyone feels like they have the time to spot check me… please PM me if I missed something!  
 

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCqXdGf0GosvZApUtGzA6M9Q

[Handy Don 12,216]

6 hours ago, 953 nut said:

I don't think this is the case with YouTube's censorship

Well said.

Too easy to conflate the ideas of "free speech" and "free (sorta) access to and use of privately owned websites".

[Handy Don 12,216]

4 hours ago, WheelHorse520H said:

I've seen some videos on how to fix a certain issue with a car and at the beginning some of them (more or less) say "your responsible if your car crushes you" why isn't it the same for videos with kids.

There is absolutely NO add-on warning that offers complete protection against being sued. We may wish there was, but if wishes came true....

[Tractorhead 9,064]

45 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

There is absolutely NO add-on warning that offers complete protection against being sued. We may wish there was, but if wishes came true....

 

I believe to prevent a tidal wave of lawsuits,

a simple policy decision by the respective government would in principle suffice.

if the law puts a stop to it, then there can be no lawsuits against a media provider.

 

I find our so-called data protection law here on this site of the Big Pond just as brainless as this decision.
That can hardly be surpassed in senselessness.
You have to allow cookies on every website, but it doesn't say anywhere that you have to be able to refuse them.
Since I usually can't choose that, there's nothing left but to avoid these websites.

 

However, I ask myself why I then have to agree to giving them my data if I don't want to but also have no option to click a clear "no".

 

[Handy Don 12,216]

1 hour ago, Tractorhead said:

a simple policy decision by the respective government would in principle suffice.

 

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that we are a nation of 50 states whose governmental powers are EVERYTHING not explicitly yielded to (or taken by?) the Federal government. Some civil and criminal law matters of national applicability have been ceded to Federal jurisdiction, but most have not. These mostly involve interstate or international activities. (Germany ~80 million people, 16 states; USA ~250 million, 50 states)

Also worth mentioning is that it can be quite difficult to get a substantive majority of the people/states of the USA onto the same side of any issue.

The "I'll take it to court" freedom is pretty deeply ingrained plus it supports the livelihood of quite a few (vocal and politically connected) lawyers and their organizations. It is a mixed blessing in that it can offer important relief and recompense unobtainable elsewhere when wielded justly but can be a colossal waste of time, money, and emotional investment when frivolous.

 

[Tractorhead 9,064]

1 hour ago, Handy Don said:

Perhaps it is worth mentioning that we are a nation of 50 states whose governmental powers are EVERYTHING not explicitly yielded to (or taken by?) the Federal government. Some civil and criminal law matters of national applicability have been ceded to Federal jurisdiction, but most have not. These mostly involve interstate or international activities. (Germany ~80 million people, 16 states; USA ~250 million, 50 states)

Also worth mentioning is that it can be quite difficult to get a substantive majority of the people/states of the USA onto the same side of any issue.

The "I'll take it to court" freedom is pretty deeply ingrained plus it supports the livelihood of quite a few (vocal and politically connected) lawyers and their organizations. It is a mixed blessing in that it can offer important relief and recompense unobtainable elsewhere when wielded justly but can be a colossal waste of time, money, and emotional investment when frivolous.

 

 

Far be it from me to judge the American legal system.

That would be arrogant and presumptuous.

 

But it doesn't matter whether there are 10, 20 or 2000 states.
I see this problem more globally and it goes far beyond the purely American or German legal system,

after all Google is a global media service.

As a result, there should also be supra-regional legislation, or individual rules for each country or nation.

Other countries usually have many other laws that we as outsiders sometimes cannot understand.

 

In my humble opinion, however, there should always be one thing in common:

- everyone is responsible for their own actions. -

 

A small example:
To me, a revolver is just a piece of metal, because it alone cannot kill a person.
It requires a human being, or rather a shooter.
If he now fires at targets he does not cause any damage,

but if the shooter points the gun at another person, this is not a decision of the gun manufacturer.

 

So why should he then be able to be sued? Because he manufactures a piece of technology?

what does it look like when someone attacks someone with a bread knife?
Would the bread knife manufacturer then be liable?

 

Everyone is responsible for their actions -

 

I still see simple deleting as censorship.

[sjoemie himself 3,068]

1 hour ago, Tractorhead said:

Everyone is responsible for their actions

Amen to that!

 

Same idea came to mind when I read a message in our neigbourhood WhatsApp-group, bare with me now 

 

Some people noticed there was a traffic agent/cop with a lasergun in our street.

(Info: our street has a speedlimit of 50 kph or roughly 30 mph, has a berm with trees and sidewalk on one side and a berm with trees and a bicycle lane on the other side).

 

So after sighting mr. Lasergun naturally a message was sent in the group-chat "beware, slow down, there's a lasergunner".

All fine and dandy, people slowed down, saved some money, everything safe and good.

 

Incoming: the (overprotective) parents.. they think it is a good idea, for childrens' sake, to appeal to the district or province that they please make our street a 30 kph or 19 mph zone. So that the children can be safe 

 

1. There are a sidewalk ánd a bicycle lane on which the children could play.

2. Iffff your children must cross the street you should teach them how to do it properly.

3. If you do not trust that they can do that, do NOT let your children play near the street.

4. If a car were to hit your child, even at 19mph, it will not end well.

 

My point being, yes drivers should obey the speed limit, especially in residential areas.

But do not blame drivers when your children are unguided missiles (yes I have seen young kids of 5/6 years old, cross the street as if 2000kg/4000lbs cars were not existant) the street is not a playground, your backyard is.

5 or 6 yo's dont belong anywhere near a street without adult supervision. Yes I know it's a pain in the behind to watch them all the time and teach 'em stuff but that's called parenting. 

 

Rant mode: off 

 

[953 nut 55,197]

When the United States was an agrarian society everyone was willing to look after other people in their community. They made a point of getting to know everybody, overlooked their shortcomings and offered help as needed

During the industrial revaluation many farmers left the fields for the higher wages and their community centered lifestyle became a bit more self centered. They continued to hold fast to their family ties but were less involved in helping others

When we entered the "Service Economy" many of us found that we don't know the people down the street and working class people have encouraged their children to become lawyers. After-all, that is where the money is.

In this litigious society it seems more likely that rather than offering help as needed and overlooking shortcomings a law suit will result regardless of who was at fault. It is sad but true as I see it.

[wh500special 2,170]

49 minutes ago, 953 nut said:

…. the industrial revaluation…

Was this a typo or deliberate?

 

Either way, very very clever. 
 

Steve 

[adsm08 2,048]

8 hours ago, Pullstart said:

I *believe* all my minors and equipment videos that “they think” violates their policies have been taken down.  If anyone feels like they have the time to spot check me… please PM me if I missed something!  
 

https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCqXdGf0GosvZApUtGzA6M9Q

 

I think that one video still there might offend the vegans.

[adsm08 2,048]

5 hours ago, Tractorhead said:

 

I believe to prevent a tidal wave of lawsuits,

a simple policy decision by the respective government would in principle suffice.

if the law puts a stop to it, then there can be no lawsuits against a media provider.

 

 

You would think, however not every member of our judicial system follow the law.

 

We have a lawful commerce clause here that is supposed to prevent a company from being sued if a legal product that they lawfully produce and sell is used in a crime, but there have been successful lawsuits against gun companies in recent years that should have been prevented by said clause.

[Tractorhead 9,064]

7 hours ago, adsm08 said:

 

You would think, however not every member of our judicial system follow the law.

 

We have a lawful commerce clause here that is supposed to prevent a company from being sued if a legal product that they lawfully produce and sell is used in a crime, but there have been successful lawsuits against gun companies in recent years that should have been prevented by said clause.

 

There are such laws in every nation, one can argue about their usefulness.
but I don't think that's the point here.

This is about control or censorship, as I have understood it so far.

 

@953nut already bring it to the point,
many people are no longer willing to take personal responsibility.
It all starts at work - clocking in and handing in your brain at the gate.

I've been watching this with concern for a long time,

because it fuels frustration and is very easy to exploit.

 

In this regard, I would also like to remind you of the film “The Wave”,

which is based on facts. Imho it is easy to see how easy it is to (re)build such a hierarchy.

 

- I still have to think about the chewing gum..😂

 

But to ask a little more pointedly in a thing i knew a little bit about:
When someone so completely relinquishes their own responsibility and puts their thinking in the hands of others,
should he eg: be allowed to drive a vehicle?
After all, countless decisions have to be made during a journey.
A vehicle can also be converted into a weapon, as we have seen even on our Site in the past.
Was it then the vehicle manufacturer's fault because he didn't have a note in the vehicle

- be careful not to race in groups of people?

And that brings me back to the point of autonomous driving,

so „chewing gum“ can also get safely from A to B.

But to establish such a System „the uncertain factors“ called Human must be removed before.

This should be done carefully by implementing and establishing so called „ Comfort Functions“

they remove the responsibillity from the Driver to the Car - step by step.

 

The first comfort function was a ESP and goes over lane keeping assistent, automatic Emergency brakes

over to more and more autonomous drive.

That was allready suggested to us more than 20years back, where the Fraunhofer Institute

together with Mercedes Benz does the first autonom Vehicle in a old Mercedes Düsseldorfer Van

with a huge Computer System that takes the whole Rear space in the Van that time.
They told us how was the Plan and was a point i choose to leave the Development zone.

 

This should also be starting with a simple Control gadget like ESP( Electronic Stability Program)

and ends one Day with a fully Censorship in Fully Autonom Vehicles.

The reason is, that Vehicles gets more and more Sensors in them and a Human cannot be drive so concentrated

to act as reliable, accurate and continousely as a Sensor.

So a much higher Traffic density can be made.

 

But who is resposible if such a system is sometimes established and fails?

the Driver because he was in the Car or even the Car Manufacturer?

or nobody because no responsibility can be found?  Manufacturer - Hardware - Software - Owner

 

Control and censorship goes closely aside.

 

[Handy Don 12,216]

6 hours ago, Tractorhead said:

But who is resposible if such a system is sometimes established and fails?

the Driver because he was in the Car or even the Car Manufacturer?

or nobody because no responsibility can be found?  Manufacturer - Hardware - Software - Owner

It is situations such as this, where there is no simple, obvious, mutually-agreed answer that really challenge us.

 

I can look to the many U.S. states that have "no fault" automotive liability insurance (or at least "uninsured driver" clauses) for a possible path forward. There was great concern about implementing it (at least in my state of New York) but it has largely been accepted as working well. Why did we need it? Because people then, and still, put others at risk by choosing to drive while uninsured (and often in ill-maintained vehicles), especially if they are poor and have little to lose. Does the burden of cost still fall "unfairly" on those who dutifully carry proper insurance? Yes, but it is not a perfect world!

 

I expect, eventually and after much noise, to see some similar solution for the whole range of "driver assist" to "no human driver" technologies with premiums coming from all the parties you mention and with limits set on the types and amounts of claims.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Handy Don

[Tractorhead 9,064]

I like this comparison between the internet and road traffic,

precisely because the possibilities on the internet are just as diverse as in road traffic.

Especially with new media, older people often become victims of chewing gum

just because they are hardly able to protect themselves from it and their good faith is shamelessly exploited by such subjects.
Unfortunately, many Internet providers implement security mechanisms poorly or very sloppily.

Unfortunately, the often quoted and pretended anonymity of the internet helps a lot.
This is advanced because it is quite possible to trace back the IP addresses with date and time stamps by dialing in to the internet provider.
Elaborate but doable.

What makes things worse is the really stupid or rather clumsy implementation of general data protection here with us,

which above all also protects perpetrators.

This raises the question again - control or censorship,

 

what is easier to implement and not what is more sustainable and effective.

In the case of child pornography, these paths are already being taken to search for the perpetrator, which I very much welcome, but in the case of simple crimes, the perpetrators are usually protected themselves by so-called data protection.

Responsibility shifted, problem solved.

 

What actually happens when a chewing gum in the circus sees an attraction, tries to recreate it and has a serious accident?

is the circus or even the ringmaster responsible for it?

there are countless examples on this topic.....

[Stormin 9,981]

I'm just pleased I'm the age I am.

[Handy Don 12,216]

50 minutes ago, Tractorhead said:

pretended anonymity

Well phrased and a well-understood symptom of human nature.

While the EU data protections are far from perfect, they are a step in the right direction and they have caused people to take more notice and, hence, gain more understanding.

[Tractorhead 9,064]

Meh, I'm not really sure about EU data protection and its implementation,
that they have recognized where the main problem lies.

 

Nevertheless, I agree with you, it is a first step in the right direction,

only the implementation leaves something to be desired.

 

 

But despite this difficult topic,

I find that there is no hate or even troll postings here,

just a normal, factual discussion.

 

That's why I love the Redsquare forum so much.
It's a great platform with great people on it.