Lasted edited by Andrew Munsey, updated on June 15, 2016 at 1:27 am.
The following feedback was submitted by Congress:Founder:Sterling D. Allan to YouTube on Oct. 26, 2007:
I would like to talk to an executive at YouTube about enabling an opt-out option for salacious content. I've offered this suggestion about a month ago but got no response and I see no such feature being offered yet.
I greatly appreciate the general capabilities of YouTube, and use the service several times daily, posting and featuring content. But I resent being unwillfully subjected to all the smut that is offered at YouTube.
It seems that 1 of every 5-10 random videos offered at YouTube fit this category, independent of the context of the subject matter being viewed. Your allowance of soft porn entices people, especially males, who are visually stimulated, to lust and is an indirect support to the porn industry and intent. I would dare say that YouTube is a major contributor to the epidemic downward spiral our society to sexual addiction.
See our coverage at http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Sexaholism (First entry for a search via Google for "Sexaholism".)
Right now you are forcing smut on all viewers of all ages. In the spirit of freedom, I think you should allow users to opt out of being subjected to the objectionable content.
All that would be required, from a programming point of view, would be to add a "smut" flag, similar to your "inappropriate content" flag option. Any video identified as smut would not appear on someone's account that has opted out. While you're at it, you might broaden the word "smut" to include other non-desirable content, such as violence (borderline), swearing, etc. Some possible word suggestions include: "naughty", "borderline", "mom said no". I'm sure your marketing people can come up with something clever.
Ideally, the filtering could be category by category. Some people find salacious content objectionable, but are not bothered by some swearing. So an advanced version of the opt-out flag could be a drop-down menu to specify the genre of borderline inappropriateness.
It would be good, too, if those who opt out could be given such flag opportunities without having to click on the video to watch it, but could flag it from the thumbnail view alone (e.g. upon mouse-over), on behalf of others who are opted out. That way, people who have this level of conscience don't have to click into the video, subjecting themselves to further temptation, in order to flag the video as being "smut". Those who don't opt out are not as likely to mark things as smut in a timely way on behalf of those who prefer not to be subjected to it.
If I don't get assurance that you will take this filter option suggestion seriously, then I will post a public petition for people to sign to this effect. My phone: 801-407-1292 (Mountain time).
I am one who helped head the "Draft Ron Paul for President" campaign for the 2004 election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#Campaigns_as_incumbent I surround myself with people of vision and action. Please don't disregard these concerns.
| Sterling D. Allan
| New Energy Congress
| PES Network, Inc, CEO
| Daily news by email:
| http://www.freeenergynews.com/newsletters - subscribe (free)
| Home office / cell: 1-801-407-1292 (mountain time)
| Eagle Mountain, Utah, USA