|
I agree. Youtube is a very good website, but I would say that it isn't really for children. I've
seen unsuitable videos crop up and users advertising pornographic websites in the comments, so I
wouldn't really recommend it to a 12 year old.
Some 12 year olds will be more mature than others but in terms of content, I still don't think they
should use the site. People do post very immature comments and it doesn't seem like a suitable
environment for children.
If the site simply contained content suitable for children and nothing else, then I would say that
they should use it. But due to the content that often pops up in the "Videos Being Watched Now"
section, I would say that users must be at least 18 years old or above to use the site.
The uploading of pornagraphic videos, videos that infringe copyright and other types of unsuitable
content on Youtube is prohibited, but this does not stop users from uploading them and there is a
chance that a child could spot the video before the site have the chance to remove it. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I don't think that YouTube should impose age restrictions when it comes to membership. YouTube
encourages people of all ages to produce short clips and other videos at home, and allowing children
to participate can serve as a great way for them to develop their creative skills. Of course I
realize that YouTube is full of amateurish, nonsensical and totally mundane rubbish, but most of
this is probably produced by undergraduate college students and those in their late teens; yet we
are not suggesting that they be banned as well.
There are videos on YouTube that are certainly inappropriate for children. In fact, videos that have
been flagged require users to sign in and "confirm" their age, prior to viewing it. Of course, it is
not at all difficult to fool the system and get through this checkpoint, but parents should take
responsibility for ensuring that their child's online activities are age appropriate and we should
not expect major video distributors to toughen their rules. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That is pretty much the same as saying all children should be blind folded and kept in a box not
given any exposure to the outside world because obviously they are too stupid and fragile to be able
to cope with it... That is what you are suggesting in fact..
I'm assuming that this is your morality that would be policing the Internet..
I know things like that can happen, so can stumbling in to your parents bedroom while they are
having sex.. S hit happens.. It's about talking to your child, getting perspective on it, stop
making the Internet and specifically in this instance youtube, the boogie man of the 21st century |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well, what would be the reason for the restriction? You specified as members, meaning you think they
should not be able to post comments, rate videos, or add videos. However, they still have complete
access to inappropriate videos even without a membership. I don't see the reason for them not being
allowed to rate videos, but many younger children often make mistakes in the other two features of
being a member. They often post copyrighted videos or a collaboration of pictures, something not
many would care to see, and they often comment with rude remarks that are immature. However, you did
state that it depended on responsibility and maturity. I do agree on that, leaving the restriction
to be towards individuals who have faulted in the past on YouTube. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
20 Mar 2008 01:03
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
