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.

Spoiler: Show

[mjmacky]

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.