YouTube: The Prevelance of Porn and Snuff Videos

Snuff videos, pornography, terrorism and death threats-they might not be the first words you associate with YouTube. If you're an avid YouTube viewer you're probably already aware of YouTube's seedier side. Many parents, however, may be unpleasantly surprised by how prevalent and easily accessible questionable content is on YouTube.

YouTube's account termination policy states that accounts will be terminated for violations such as: "...pornography, obscene or defamatory material, or excessive length." Notably, there is no mention of violence in YouTube's termination policy.

How prevalent is this content? A search for the term "sexy" returns millions of hits. "Porno" returns nearly two hundred thousand. "Murder" returns over two hundred thousand. "Crash" and "Death" return over one hundred thousand. The degree to which these results contain questionable or violent material is difficult to ascertain since YouTube doesn't have a useful rating system.

And, therein lies the real problem. Anyone looking for "porno" on YouTube is most likely interested in prurient material. However, many videos such as "sexy golfer", "sexy tennis" and "hot for words" can also be found under their more benign search terms: "golfer", "tennis" and "words."

Violent material can be even more insidious. A search for Taylor Swift's music video "You Belong With Me" returns, among other things, a zombie parody that includes brain-slurping, blood-spurting arteries and profanity-laced comments. Teens, tweens and even younger children will be exposed to material far removed from what they intended to find.

To be fair, YouTube receives hundreds of thousands of videos each day. It would be virtually impossible to screen each video for offensive content before posting it. Currently, YouTube relies on users to flag offensive content. Some questionable content is flagged as "potentially inappropriate" and only users with verified accounts are allowed access. Much of the overtly sexual content is this way-most results found under the search term "porno" are flagged as potentially inappropriate.

Interestingly, many "snuff videos" (videos, either real or fake, of people being murdered or committing suicide) are not flagged. Search terms such as "death", "blood", "murder" and "suicide" result in numerous snuff videos-some surprisingly, chillingly realistic. Gruesome videos containing graphic footage of terrorist attack victims, accident victims and burn victims are easily and unintentionally accessible.

YouTube only allows signed-in users to flag videos as inappropriate. While this significantly decreases the pool of people flagging videos it is understandable. What is less understandable is the lack of a comprehensive community rating system.

Since the 1930's the American movie industry has used a voluntary rating system that allows people to easily determine content suitability. The current movie rating system has its origins in the Hays Code-a list of things movie studio's were prohibited from including in movies. The Hays Code was developed by the movie industry in response to public outrage over the perceived moral depravity of movies in the 30's. Public sentiment was turning against the movie industry and movie studio executives were concerned that the public's dissatisfaction would lead to government censorship and intervention in the movie industry.

Most user-generated content sites on the Internet only offer very rudimentary rating systems. YouTube, and other internet media sites, would be well advised to emulate the movie industry's approach to self-governance-a simple, community-based rating system similar to the MPAA ratings would greatly enhance the user experience.

Internet technologies allow for substantial individual customization and YouTube and its competitors have an opportunity to improve upon MPAA-like rating systems and allow users to truly tailor their content searches. The ability to restrict access based on more detailed content classifications would alleviate many parents' concerns regarding their children's online media viewing. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a concerted effort to provide detailed, age-appropriate ratings. Perhaps YouTube and its competitors need the same impetus that caused the movie industry to provide this service-the threat of censorship and government intervention. For that to happen more public outrage is needed. And, for that, all we need is for concerned parents to spend a little bit more time surfing YouTube with their children.