Here's one, just one of the things about commercialism that drive me up the wall

[mjmacky]

I've noticed for awhile that a lot of the music on Youtube has this Vevo association. I kept meaning to look it up and create the data entry in my head that defines what it is and what it's meant to do, even though I already had a general idea. I bothered to do that just 5 minutes ago. It's a video streaming collaboration between Sony, Universal, etc., sort of like Hulu for music videos. For a second there I thought, yeah, I could get behind this.

Then...

Then I came across this section on the Wikipedia page.

Policy on videos with explicit content

Versions of videos on Vevo with explicit content such as profanity may be edited. A company spokesperson stated: "Our censorship goal for launch was to keep everything clean for broadcast, 'the MTV version.'" This allows Vevo to make their network more friendly to advertising partners such as McDonald's. Vevo has stated that it does not have specific policies or a list of words that are forbidden. Some videos are provided with an explicit version in addition to the censored version. There is no formal rating system in place, aside from classifying videos as explicit or non-explicit, but discussions are taking place to create a rating system that allows users and advertisers to choose the level of profanity they are willing to accept.

Censorship for the sake of commercialism. Fuck them. Fuck them for not being available everywhere too. Fuck Hulu too. And while we're at it, fuck Youtube. Last, but not least, fuck Apple. No particular reason to include that last one besides the fact that they're always on my shit list.

[megabyteme]

I can't say I'm on-board with you on this one, macky. I dislike half of the names associated with this, but I find it at least decent that they are making versions of the music videos available. If I want to link something quick to a thread, I wouldn't necessarily shun them over a bleeped lyric. Now, if they insist on cramming a minute of commercial down my throat to watch a 4 minute vid, then I have a problem with them.

Would I prefer an unfiltered world? Two years ago, I think I would have answered differently, but now, I'm not so opposed to a family-friendly-ish (at least as an option) surface internet. Now, do I want to be able to let my inner-potty mouth, blood lusting, casual racism hair down when I want? Yes, of course. Can the two worlds exist together? I think so...

[mjmacky]

I can't say I'm on-board with you on this one, macky. I dislike half of the names associated with this, but I find it at least decent that they are making versions of the music videos available. If I want to link something quick to a thread, I wouldn't necessarily shun them over a bleeped lyric. Now, if they insist on cramming a minute of commercial down my throat to watch a 4 minute vid, then I have a problem with them.

Would I prefer an unfiltered world? Two years ago, I think I would have answered differently, but now, I'm not so opposed to a family-friendly-ish (at least as an option) surface internet. Now, do I want to be able to let my inner-potty mouth, blood lusting, casual racism hair down when I want? Yes, of course. Can the two worlds exist together? I think so...

When your kids grow up, I'm going to send them singing telegrams featuring bits from a George Carlin routine. If nobody made a fuss over it, it wouldn't be offensive. It's an entirely pointless exercise. That's what bugs me the most about this type of censorship, its utter futility.

Additionally, I always hate the record labels, and coincidentally I hate FOX and ABC. But when they venture into the new age trying to improve the user experience, I want to see it become a success. However, they trip up over their archaic predispositions and try to tie it down with the circle jerk on the business side, then I see it's a decade or nine too soon to see these industries grow up. At this point, I don't like Hulu really, I like all the "hacks" or "exploits" users have done to make it a more enjoyable service, and in that sense, usable.

[megabyteme]

How would you feel about seeing a 4 year old in a grocery store saying f-this, bitch-that, cunt, cumfart, etc. while you try to buy milk, or w/e?

Public access should have some restraint involved. And, I'm not necessarily a "prude". Remember, my 2-year old saw the entire, unedited Deadwood before she saw all of Dora the Explorer series. The difference, in my mind, is that we knew what she was watching, and the effects were mild. I also like being able to leave certain programs on for the kids to watch while they are unsupervised. As I said, expectations of family-friendliness in public-tier "locations."

[mjmacky]

If that was the particular string of order, I'd think the kid was emulating an idiot. I find more atrocious the way they speak in the ghetto, and the illiteracy. Doesn't mean they should be prevented to speak completely. It comes down to this, there is no restraint for stupidity, which is a far greater crime, why should there be one for diction?

[megabyteme]

No one is saying the only version that will be available is the censored one. In fact, the quote you gave mentioned uncensored versions available, too. It seems there will be options available- and that is what I want. Options. I can block content if I'm feeling like Nazi Dad, and I can post raw, vile, pure filth here on FST.

I thought of it a few minutes after my post, then had to pick up my kids and did not make the edit, but I would not want to hear "adults" speaking "freely" in public places, either. I would not want my kids to hear it, and personal restraint is generally hoped for in most places- for hopes of community standards (of sorts).

How do you feel about obnoxious, rude people in public places? Would you defend their actions as free speech? Why should airwaves of public radio, and the "surface level" internet (namely businesses) have lower standards? And, no one (governmental laws, anyway) is forcing these companies to make these modifications- they are making them with the expectation that businesses are more likely to support family-friendly content over expletive-loaded material. And businesses tend to know what their consumer base prefers.

[mjmacky]

No one is saying the only version that will be available is the censored one. In fact, the quote you gave mentioned uncensored versions available, too. It seems there will be options available- and that is what I want. Options. I can block content if I'm feeling like Nazi Dad, and I can post raw, vile, pure filth here on FST.

I thought of it a few minutes after my post, then had to pick up my kids and did not make the edit, but I would not want to hear "adults" speaking "freely" in public places, either. I would not want my kids to hear it, and personal restraint is generally hoped for in most places- for hopes of community standards (of sorts).

How do you feel about obnoxious, rude people in public places? Would you defend their actions as free speech? Why should airwaves of public radio, and the "surface level" internet (namely businesses) have lower standards? And, no one (governmental laws, anyway) is forcing these companies to make these modifications- they are making them with the expectation that businesses are more likely to support family-friendly content over expletive-loaded material. And businesses tend to know what their consumer base prefers.

They said "some" are offered with the uncensored version (Vevo I'm saying). You know what that means? Whatever makes them money. Just like "this service is offered on some devices", i.e. partners in which they have favorable financial agreements. There aren't options unless every single one is offered in its original form and bullshit form.

What I'm attacking here is the notion that "clean" language is family friendly, fuck I'm attacking what we consider "clean" language. If I were policing public conversation, trying to enforce family-friendly policies, my billy club would be beating a completely different person than you'd have me beating. I'll submit, for our pleasures, a side-by-side.
"She isn't even worth the trouble, I'm losing my phone and she can do whatever she wants with the baby, she couldn't pray hard enough to get a dime out of me." <--- I'm "policing" this motherfucker right here.
"That piece of shit wants us to work 55 hours a week with no overtime pay, week after week. Since when does salary entitle them to treat us like fucking slaves?" <--- He's cool, what's really wrong with this language?

I guess if forced, I would prefer to block out the racist, sexist, ignorant, etc. types of content. There is no inherent harm in the utilization of "filthy" words, it's all about contextualization. I'm not for blind policy, and blind policy would enforce the examples above in opposite fashion. In my reality, I'd let both of those guys speak their mind, standing in queue or on the radio. I really don't see how using shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits suddenly qualify as a lower "standard". I can't recall any "dirty" language coming from Rush Limbaugh, but he's a low standard if I were to ever see it personified. He got a story about him raising a flag at this very point.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74192.html

Now, Meg, I didn't do this in mean spirit, I'm not attempting to side you with Rush Limbaugh. However, I want to point out what we define as family friendly, clean, high standard, etc. There have been arbitrary benchmarks set in place with our choice of language, with no weight behind them other than a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's not a world I wish to sell upon children, I'd rather place my bets that they'll outgrow the superficiality of it all. You may have a different, more difficult situation on your hands, but that'd be your struggle for you to deal with how you choose.

P.S., your last paragraph seems like you're trying to get me to spin at such a rotation that I start drilling a hole through my floor.

[megabyteme]

First, no offense taken at any implication. We know each other well enough to know where the other is coming from.

I guess the standard I am looking for is "appropriate". Would I care if my kids used "offensive" language in the correct context, with moderation, among other individuals who would not think less of them/me for the use? No.

Do I want little gutter mouths? Fuck no!

Now, do I have expectations similar when it comes to media? Yes. That is where I would like to see restraint (censorship). And don't forget, there are always other uncensored clips available that are not from the distributor. It isn't like media companies will ever be able to control ALL of their digital media. People opposed to censored versions will upload full, explicit files. As mentioned elsewhere, when for-profit companies fail to offer what there is a demand for, non-commercial interests will fill the void.

[mjmacky]

I guess the standard I am looking for is "appropriate". Would I care if my kids used "offensive" language in the correct context, with moderation, among other individuals who would not think less of them/me for the use? No.

Do I want little gutter mouths? Fuck no!

I don't think gutter mouths have much of an appeal to anyone. But anything over the radio and network television is regulated, and that does affect corporate decision making on a larger scale. Remember, they won't sponsor if there's even one instance of "restricted language". That's an absurdist approach, and only serves to give unwarranted significance to their use.

Speaking of gutter mouth and trash language, 'like' and 'such' (as) are four letter words.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww

[mjmacky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSlbEq0roEM

My first viewing of George Carlin was at my mom's behest while I was a child. You can imagine I share my parenting views with my mother more than I do with my father (who heavily insisted I under no circumstances use foul language).

P.S. 71, which is 69 with 2 fingers up your ass.

[megabyteme]

Speaking of gutter mouth and trash language, 'like' and 'such' (as) are four letter words.

[video]

Tell me you wouldn't fuck her like such a dirty whore. And like it. :happy:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't watched the video yet, but I call foul on invoking* (both definitions) George Carlin.

*
invokingpresent participle of in·voke (Verb)


Verb:



Cite or appeal to (someone or something) as an authority for an action or in support of an argument.
Call on (a deity or spirit) in prayer, as a witness, or for inspiration.

[megabyteme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&amp;v=fiTNyX4tReE

You should note that I am not siding with any kind of regulation, or enforcement. The corporate interests are making their products available, but choosing to self-police those products that cross societal norm boundaries. My comment earlier about corporations knowing their consumer base is true. Corporations make money by knowing what the majority of consumers want/expect from their products. Edgy pays off occasionally, but "safe" works for the majority. If there was more money in (demand for) uncensored products, then that is what would be made available.

I would be with you if the issue involved not allowing individuals to upload uncensored music/videos. That would take away the "choice" I want. And I believe that would be bad precedent for the internet- especially if it became regulated that way. That's scary. Corporations getting together to make their large catalogs of music/videos available for free with only a small percentage censored sounds good to me...

[mjmacky]

Corporations make money by knowing what the majority of consumers want/expect from their products. Edgy pays off occasionally, but "safe" works for the majority. If there was more money in (demand for) uncensored products, then that is what would be made available.

I'm saying that the edge is artificial because of what has been set as an arbitrary standard. Specifically I'm quoting you out here because I wanted to make a specific point. I am in disagreement with the masses, and corporations make money by manipulating their consumer base's lack of knowledge. The same majority, with such a great lack of knowledge, determines what is acceptable language with their wallet in this self-policing policy. They self-police not because they're attempting to uphold a logical ideal, but because it makes them more money by not making enemies with "family" groups. I feel all of this propagates an unnecessary censorship practice. I guess that's my point, just more refined.

[megabyteme]

I believe we have already found some common agreement that there is such a thing as public "rudeness". While those standards vary by an individual's tolerance, and it is arbitrary, there remains something good in "acceptable behavior". This notion does not just stem from family groups, corporations, churches, etc., but from the notion that public places should maintain a minimum standard of conduct.

We can deconstruct all kinds of other norms, as well. There are generally accepted standards for writing up a resume. Are you going to rebel against those "imaginary" standards the next time you look for work? Will you stay within the arbitrary lines drawn upon the freeway, or shall you exercise your urge to rebel there, too?

Personally, I don't feel manipulated by these companies. I'm now among the masses who finds the imaginary line drawn in the air known as ""decency" to be reasonable. Again, for me, having the choice to limit my children's access to pornography, violence, ghetto speak, explicit lyrics, etc. is a good one. No one is saying that the full versions can't be uploaded, too.

Let's exclude my children for a moment, and say I am having a discussion with my mother-in-law. For whatever reason the conversation leads to it, I feel drawn to play a certain song for her. The chances are GREAT that I will play the censored version. Why, because she gives off the vibes that she would not be interested in listening to something outside of normal, polite conversation. Would she gasp, faint, or refuse to return to my house? Not a chance. It wouldn't hurt her ears any, but it would be uncomfortable for both of us.

Some people just don't want to expose themselves to the gutter.

[mjmacky]

This notion does not just stem from family groups, corporations, churches, etc., but from the notion that public places should maintain a minimum standard of conduct.

This is where we disagree. Groups and organizations have largely decided policy, standard practices and legislation in this matter.


We can deconstruct all kinds of other norms, as well. There are generally accepted standards for writing up a resume. Are you going to rebel against those "imaginary" standards the next time you look for work? Will you stay within the arbitrary lines drawn upon the freeway, or shall you exercise your urge to rebel there, too?

I don't rebel against things that have a logical purpose. For instance, the CV or the resume. Anyone in charge of hiring could possibly be examining dozens or even hundreds of resumes so standardized format and expected content is quite reasonable, for its purpose is to present relevant information. When there's traffic, those lines are useful in keeping cars from bumping into each other; however, when there's not a car nearby I don't really consider or adhere to the placement of those lines. On a final note, I have freely used "inappropriate" language in a job interview for the last job I held (something I could only remember as my former supervisor had reminded me of it when we were hanging out recently).


Personally, I don't feel manipulated by these companies. I'm now among the masses who finds the imaginary line drawn in the air known as ""decency" to be reasonable. Again, for me, having the choice to limit my children's access to pornography, violence, ghetto speak, explicit lyrics, etc. is a good one. No one is saying that the full versions can't be uploaded, too.

You may not, but I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult for you to identify a few individuals who have been manipulated. As for the other note, the conditions required to hide pornography from children would be detrimental to the child. It's an unproductive venture, discussion and education matter most here. It's probably a personal difference.


Let's exclude my children for a moment, and say I am having a discussion with my mother-in-law. For whatever reason the conversation leads to it, I feel drawn to play a certain song for her. The chances are GREAT that I will play the censored version. Why, because she gives off the vibes that she would not be interested in listening to something outside of normal, polite conversation. Would she gasp, faint, or refuse to return to my house? Not a chance. It wouldn't hurt her ears any, but it would be uncomfortable for both of us.

Some people just don't want to expose themselves to the gutter.

This is most like attributed to personality. I've never been a stranger to making someone uncomfortable, in fact I'd probably tease, regardless of who they are. No one would ever accuse me of social restraint, and I base no decisions for my actions off of social norms or expectations (rather, I just don't waste any time to consider them). I'll restrict my example to the mother-in-law scenario for direct comparison:
This (http://quizoxy.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/nisemonogatari-13.jpg) is the desktop background of my HTPC, my mother-in-law who I've had to teach how to use XBMC and Linux, pays it no mind. It's because she has completely acclimated to my frankness of operation, whereas before (many a years ago) she might have complained to Ivana about it. I'm also the son they never had so I could hardly do any wrong anyway. She is someone who tends to hold herself to social restraint, albeit a Serbian standard (she doesn't think Americans have claim to any real culture besides the obvious, e.g. Rock and Roll dude).

Call me inconsiderate, but I don't hold anyone's feelings towards socially deemed impropriety in regard. I don't go so far as making rape jokes to a victim of the act, I just base everything on merit.


Last anecdote, I promise.
In the spoiler is a framed photo that hangs above our toilet. Once, we were babysitting a friend's 6-year-old boy. He uses our restroom and once finished, asks Ivana why there were pictures of a naked girl in there. Ivana, confused about how to react stuttered for a response and came off with something about how it's just something from a magazine she liked. At that point, I interjected and said, it's a poem about how to take a bath. Suddenly, all awkwardness about the situation completely faded out.

112544

[nicovolli]

Why don't you guys exchange phone numbers and give each other a call or meet up for a beer to talk over it...;) (not so serious)

[mjmacky]

Why don't you guys exchange phone numbers and give each other a call or meet up for a beer to talk over it...;) (not so serious)

This is my outlet, and what the hell caused you to come out of 1.5 years of silence just to suggest that?

[megabyteme]

Why don't you guys exchange phone numbers and give each other a call or meet up for a beer to talk over it...;) (not so serious)

This is my outlet, and what the hell caused you to come out of 1.5 years of silence just to suggest that?

Was it good for you, too? :)

[mjmacky]

This is my outlet, and what the hell caused you to come out of 1.5 years of silence just to suggest that?

Was it good for you, too? :)

I thought I was waiting on a phone call from you so that you could respond to all my super duper invincible points. Nobody has any interest in this thread, but it managed to make a monk break his vow of silence :idunno: