Video and audio - rethinking how we do it

A rule that says no coarse language is reasonable. If the community is aware of that you might be able to rely on reports?

 

"View at your own risk"

 

Oh, and I apologize to the poor soul who was forced to watch the two vids I posted yesterday.

 

Here comedians shows may have "warning - blue for language"

how about "Warning" video may contain a blue streak

 

Warning--may contain language is enough, IMO. For people who are at work, or at home with kids running around, or those who are offended by bad language, it should be enough. Some (if not most) of the best vaping videos contain "language," including Phil's videos. We can't (and we shouldn't) censor them all.

 

"Warning: May be harmful to sensitive ears and good taste"

I had no idea mods had to do that. Bless them all as I would lose my mind after an hour of doing that. I would say a flag of whatever wording (I am partial to the sensitive ears suggestion) and then let the community decide if something is offensive enough to report it and then stick a mod with that ugly task of passing judgement.

I get the forum filters thing even though I don't object to a well placed curse word and believe one curse word might communicate 500 words of beating around the bush to say the same thing. The problem is what's judicious use and what's not. But to enforce that onto third party material that's posted here is way too much work to expect mods to do (in my opinion) and whatever flag or wording you choose with the option of voluntary reporting by the community would be my way to go.

Oh, and just because someone reports a video for saying "Oh hell" doesn't mean a mod has to automatically agree with that opinion.

 

I haven't set up a business network in years, but firewalls may have language blocks, but none that can filter audio in a video file. At least that I've ever seen. Speech recognition has made leaps and bounds, but I haven't seen it in use for that purpose yet.

If ECF gets blacklisted for content, there are ways of having that reversed. Besides, I'm surprised some of the more militant anti-vaping crowd haven't already given that the old "let's report it for blacklisting" try already just for yuks. Maybe they have and that's where sensitivity is coming from, but if so it's apparent it can be corrected.

 

I agree, I am the IT Mgr for a factory, but our web filters are managed in Israel. A website wouldnt hit our blacklist based on video. Now text could trigger a filter, and being on a blacklisting service that we subscribe to could cause a filter, otherwise it would come down to our own internal black/white lists.

All of that being said, users should have enough discretion not to being playing videos at work anyway, IMHO.

 

Video may contain content that is unacceptable to some viewers.

 

Look, if Google doesn't have any sort of automated scan capability for content (and I know they're working on it as advertisers are getting tired of having their ad placed on some utterly inappropriate video for their corporate image) short of accepting complaints and having humans watch those videos to determine validity (what a horrible job that must be), I can't visualize a situation of some spider blacklist data crawl nailing the forum. And that is how most blacklists are generated, so if the language in the posts are clean, I can't see any way it would generate a problem short of live people complaints.

Even there, how many viewers of this forum would even know who to contact to report material for blacklist inclusion? Those database vendors who do that are not exactly at the tip of your tongue, and there are more than one company supplying that service to managed business networks. Is it a theoretical risk? Sure. So is having your entire server network and backups taken down by an EMP. At what point are there diminishing returns for the effort expended?

 

As does mine. User discretion is still advised.

Most of us have been around enough to know which guys are colorful, thats what headphones are for.

At some point Users have to take responsibility for what they choose to view, and where.

 

First, a question: how much time would you imagine it takes to ensure that videos posted here are family and work safe (although, admittedly, both those conditions depend on your family or your work)?--------------------------------- Probably too much time.

So, what do you think the ramifications might be? ------------------------Might not be worth worrying about it unless you started losing revenue.

I'd like to autotag all embedded audio/video media with a note saying: "warning - not vetted, may contain language". But I'd like a tag that's funnier than that. Any ideas?------------ Careful, contents not vetted, poster may be crude,rude,lewd,and blowing smoke. Could add boiler plate " not responsible"--- yada yada.
------------Could have a "like" rating. : Example: Offensive, Adult rated etc..

 

People also use their smart devices in public places--cafes, airports, parks, etc. I love ECF because it's a moderated site and I know that I won't see questionable pictures and/or language when I log on. But an embedded video is different--I don't have to play it if I don't want to hear bad language. A warning is a good idea.

 

That's true. You never see anyone here calling another nasty nasty names, which is a plus. One of the reasons I seldom go to FB, people on there say some pretty awful stuff depending on where you go. The threads I belong to are like ECF in that respect but occasionally I will read some of the other stuff.
When I last worked which was 7 years ago, they had put me in a desk job because of health problems and I had access to anywhere I wanted to go on the company computer. I mostly looked at vape gear.

 

When I watch anything at work I simply pause & minimize until customer/visitor has left. Of course that may be too simple a solution for some.