Youngsters dice with death in YouTube railway stunts
Yesterday it was reported that youngsters are filming trains speeding towards them as they stand near the platform edge, with their cameras shaking because of the speed of the trains.
The youngsters try to get the drivers to sound train horns and then post videos on YouTube, with titles such as “horny drivers” and “awesome horn”.
This suggests that their incentive for carrying out such dangerous performances is that they will be praised via YouTube. By YouTube allowing such footage to be posted on their website they are encouraging this risky and harmful behaviour.
What do you think? All comments welcome…
March 12, 2008 at 6:23 pm
What a load of rubbish!
How can you possibly claim that YouTube “encourage” such risky and harmful behaviour. The fact that YouTube ALLOW such material to be posted does not mean they “encourage” it. YouTube serves as a venue for items to be posted but does not endorse it, had it become a “Featured Item” perhaps it would be a different story, but it isn’t.
Next, as far as I know, such behaviour isn’t even illegal – they are standing on a platform, videoing trains – it may be dangerous, but where’s the crime? A more valid criticism would be directed at the train drivers for sounding their horns and encouraging them in the first place!
Just because things are dangerous, doesn’t mean YouTube should ban them or be held responsible. Surely you wouldn’t object if someone posted a video of skydiving or of rock climbing, ski stunts or some other death-defying activities in which MANY, MANY people actually DO die every year??
March 12, 2008 at 11:12 pm
YouTube doesn’t encourage such behaviour by saying ‘Post dangerous activities on our website’, but by allowing such footage to be posted online it’s as if they’re approving it which in turn encourages kids to repeat and/ or imitate this behaviour. Why else would these teenagers record trains speeding towards them? They’re obviously doing it so that they can gain attention and interest via viewers on YouTube. If YouTube didn’t exist I highly doubt these teenagers would make the effort to go out and risk their lives by standing on the platform edge recording trains coming towards them.
You said: “YouTube serves as a venue for items to be posted but does not endorse it.” Here is analogy of what you claim:
A supermarket has a section which sells food beyond its sell by date. The supermarket doesn’t encourage its customers to buy food which is off but still sell it. If the customers want to buy it they have the option to. Where is the sense in that? If they don’t encourage their customers to buy food beyond its sell by date then why would they sell it in the first place? If they know that food beyond its sell by date can harm their customers then they shouldn’t sell it. So too, how can “YouTube serve as a venue for items to be posted but does not endorse it”? If they don’t endorse such behaviour then why would they allow it on their website? Surely it’s endorsing such behaviour if people view it. There have been comments such as “Keep up the gr8 “horny” work m8’s!!!” and “5/5”…surely that shows how this video has encouraged other teenagers.
It’s not about whether the behaviour is illegal or not – it’s about how the behaviour is dangerous and unnecessary. What do they or their audience gain from these videos? Recording trains from the platform is unheard of and therefore there has never been a need for it to be deemed illegal. There is a reason why there is a yellow line by the platform edge. The train drivers haven’t got the potential of dying by hooting, but there is a possibility that the teens who are recording could fall off the edge and die. Then who would be to blame? Maybe the train drivers but they would never have hooted had the teenagers not been recording them in the first place. And maybe the train drivers were hooting because they thought that the teenagers were going to commit suicide. They are diverting the train drivers’ attention and so could easily cause them to make an accident.
In addition, I never mentioned crime. I said it was risky and harmful behaviour, which it is. Sky diving, rock climbing and ski stunts are all classified as extreme sports. Whenever people take part in such sport there are always medics and professional people around just in case something goes wrong whereas in this situation if one of them fell off the platform who would be capable of helping? No one. This is not an extreme sport, but unsafe and inappropriate behaviour which shouldn’t be posted on sharing websites such as YouTube. Like I said before, it gives them more of an incentive to carry out harmful behaviour. Had YouTube censored this video the chances of the teenagers repeating this behaviour would be reduced.
March 13, 2008 at 1:48 am
You almost agree with me at the end of your comment – “…which shouldn’t be posted…” – exactly, it SHOULDN’T be posted!
From Wikipedia: “In August 2006, The Wall Street Journal published an article revealing that YouTube was hosting about 6.1 million videos” – SIX POINT ONE MILLION VIDEOS — a year and a half ago! so there are probably what, 9 million videos now? maybe more? how can youtube possibly POLICE such a large quantity of videos?! it is down to the users to flag inappropriate content and for youtube to delete it!
next, your analogy is, i am afraid, all wrong. youtube is a middleman – a supermarket is not a middleman. supermarkets DO want you to buy food past the sell-by date, there is no restriction them selling it, in fact many shops ADVERTISE in-store reduced products past their sell-by date because they are more than happy to shift them ASAP.
i will now move on to an analysis of your points point-by-point:
- “allowing such footage to be posted online it’s as if they’re approving it”
if a bank gets robbed, it’s as if the bank approves it (the bank did ALLOW itself to be robbed, after all — and you cant say well they try to deter bank robbers because youtube also try and deter misusers by allowing stuff to be reported)
- “YouTube didn’t exist I highly doubt these teenagers would make…”
kids played on railway tracks far before youtube existed. next, they could still share these videos with each other by bluetooth or alternative sites
- “If they don’t endorse such behaviour then why would they allow it on their website?”
they don’t allow it, they don’t disallow it. let’s say mr X is having an affair with mrs Y and they exchange messages over facebook, by facebook ALLOWing such messages to be exchanged, does facebook support marital infidelity? what if terrorists used hotmail email to email each other and plan terrorist attacks, is bill gates then responsible for the attack because he ALLOWed such communications to go through hotmail?
- “how the behaviour is dangerous and unnecessary.”
as are extreme sports?
- “Whenever people take part in such sport there are always medics and professional people around just in case”
there are many, many, MANY instances on youtube where people do stupid stunts with no medics or professionals around. in fact, this is probably the vast majority.
- “Had YouTube censored this video ”
and how do you propose youtube do this??
March 13, 2008 at 1:51 am
Oh, and to add to my previous comment, regarding the final point, 65,000 videos were being added per day in july 2006 compared to 50,000 in may 2006… so by now that’s probably something like 100,000+ new videos every day of the week at all times of the day in all languages, from all countries and cultures, i am simply trying to understand how you plan to moderate this…
March 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm
I’m confused. I’m arguing that this type of footage shouldn’t be posted on YouTube, and from what I understood from your argument you’re arguing that it should be posted. So why did you say: “exactly, it SHOULDN’T be posted!”?
You don’t need to use capitals I can read. You’re right I’m sure it’s very difficult for YouTube to police such a large quantity of videos and that’s why there are so many inappropriate videos online. Maybe they could devise a system which picked up on words in video titles such as “rape”, “murder”, “bully” etc which administrators would have to view before it’s published. Overall I do think that YouTube is a great website and extremely helpful, however, these unsuitable videos are ruining it.
“I will now move on to an analysis of your points point-by-point.”
I said: “allowing such footage to be posted online it’s as if they’re approving it”
You said: “if a bank gets robbed, it’s as if the bank approves it (the bank did ALLOW itself to be robbed, after all — and you cant say well they try to deter bank robbers because youtube also try and deter misusers by allowing stuff to be reported)”
How is it as if the bank approves it? A bank has security cameras and security men outside protecting it. YouTube doesn’t. It only has viewers who flag a video if they think it’s inappropriate which isn’t very helpful.
I said: “YouTube didn’t exist I highly doubt these teenagers would make…”
You said: kids played on railway tracks far before youtube existed. next, they could still share these videos with each other by bluetooth or alternative sites
Bluetooth is a different story. On YouTube they have a much larger audience who can comment on their videos and encourage them to repeat what they’re doing.
I said: “If they don’t endorse such behaviour then why would they allow it on their website?”
You said: they don’t allow it, they don’t disallow it. let’s say mr X is having an affair with mrs Y and they exchange messages over facebook, by facebook ALLOWing such messages to be exchanged, does facebook support marital infidelity? what if terrorists used hotmail email to email each other and plan terrorist attacks, is bill gates then responsible for the attack because he ALLOWed such communications to go through hotmail?
A facebook message is private and so is an email via hotmail meaning that no one can comment on a facebook message nor can they comment on an email. Plus, here we’re talking about video footage not text.
I said: “how the behaviour is dangerous and unnecessary.”
you said: as are extreme sports?
I said: “Whenever people take part in such sport there are always medics and professional people around just in case”
You said: there are many, many, MANY instances on youtube where people do stupid stunts with no medics or professionals around. in fact, this is probably the vast majority.
I agree and they shouldn’t be on YouTube either. This video is only a minor example of the dangers of YouTube.
I said: “Had YouTube censored this video ”
You said: and how do you propose youtube do this??
Look above.
You said: 65,000 videos were being added per day in july 2006 compared to 50,000 in may 2006… so by now that’s probably something like 100,000+ new videos every day of the week at all times of the day in all languages, from all countries and cultures, i am simply trying to understand how you plan to moderate this…
Let me reiterate two important points. 1. I don’t think YouTube is bad. I simply believe that some of the footage shouldn’t be posted online. Of course there is no way in which YouTube can moderate every video posted online but they can at least try in one way or another like I mentioned above. 2. This video is only a minor example. I’m sure the teenagers were only doing it to have a bit of fun but they still need to understand the dangers of their actions. It really can influence others in repeating such behaviour.
I’m not here to argue with you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion…
March 14, 2008 at 5:04 pm
YouTube is yet another example of how the Internet has increased ‘the power of one’; the individual is far more powerful today than ever before. In giving people this power, YouTube has highlighted a global social and moral problem. The fact that these videos are being posted could and probably has increased the exposure of this dangerous behaviour of a few individuals and probably encourages a larger proportion of people to repeat this action. Since Mandy has set up this blog, her opinions are being contested by us and others around the world. The ignorant amongst us will misuse whatever medium is available. YouTube is full of ignorant people posting videos which are gaining in popularity purely based on the stupidity factor, the level of violence, the degree of pain inflicted etc etc. In some ways we have to say thank you to YouTube for bringing to our attention all the types of problems that are rife in the world. At least now we have a clearer idea of the individuals we are dealing with and can look to tackle the problem.
I do believe that there is too much emphasis on self-policing on YouTube, but can understand with the volume of videos being added daily that there is little that can be done to avoid it. A consequence of this is that videos far worse than this have been viewed thousands of times before being removed (just see the other articles in this blog). A possible solution would be to amend the terms and conditions of use for YouTube, saying that any inappropriate footage / law-breaking, could result in legal action. This could act as a deterrent.
YouTube is powerful; so much more powerful than conventional TV. it’s just a shame that it has highlighted so many social problems that are simply not going away, and in fact are far worse today than perhaps ever and it’s likely that things will continue this way. We live in a society that is growing up on Jackass TV, what else can we expect?