For reference purposes, here is what it says exactly:

#

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-Out-Drug-Addict-GO


For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.

>> ^bareboards2:

http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-
Out-Drug-Addict-GO

For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.


I'm actually not talking about that video; I'm talking about a long-standing videosift tradition where people sift videos that fit the definition of snuff but then say the rule doesn't apply because "this is important". We always need to "get the word out" or some such nonsense. If you really want to get the word out, in most cases you could sift a news report about the incident instead.

That is exactly what happened in the comment thread of this specific video. What video are you talking about? Or do you want to just chat in general about this topic? I am confused.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bareboards2:
http://videosift.com/video/10-Fully-Armored-Police-vs-1-Burnt-
Out-Drug-Addict-GO

For those who missed it, this is the video overcast is talking about. It is 52 seconds long.

I'm actually not talking about that video; I'm talking about a long-standing videosift tradition where people sift videos that fit the definition of snuff but then say the rule doesn't apply because "this is important". We always need to "get the word out" or some such nonsense. If you really want to get the word out, in most cases you could sift a news report about the incident instead.

Oddly enough, I just ran this search and found that the Budd Dwyer suicide was sifted and I even voted "snuff" on it (and it was ultimately discarded).

I also found out that a lot of the videos I remembered being sifted which I felt shouldn't have been were eventually discarded, sometimes weeks later. So that's good... there hasn't been as much inconsistency as I felt like there was, but I still think there's quite a bit.

Note that I am specifically attacking the rule here. I think it needs to be reworded, at least. I will continue to downvote videos that I feel are graphic deaths with no redeeming value no matter what, but the ambiguous rule is what I'm bitching about here.

>> ^bareboards2:

That is exactly what happened in the comment thread of this specific video. What video are you talking about? Or do you want to just chat in general about this topic? I am confused.

Well yes, because that's exactly what happens in the comment thread of every might-be snuff video here. It never fails. Browse the threads in the search link I just posted.

I believe you. I'll pass on reading them.

It seems to me that your issue seems to be one of quick enforcement of the ban on "snuff" -- that when snuff is called, there isn't a mechanism to slow things down. It may take weeks, based on what you say here.

But I think that there may be a mechanism. I had it happen to me. I posted a vid that had an ugly word superimposed on the video that I didn't notice. Someone else did and yanked it into Sift Talk rather than leave it out for the general public to stumble across. A new embed was found and it was reposted.

Maybe that could work here. Pull a possible "snuff" vid into Sift Talk and decide as a community whether to post it or not.

Does that make sense? Am I understanding your concern correctly?


>> ^xxovercastxx:

Well yes, because that's exactly what happens in the comment thread of every might-be snuff video here. It never fails. Browse the threads in the search link I just posted.

*snuff

Adding video to channels (snuff) - requested by dystopianfuturetoday.

More murder porn! But seriously, that last one is News, it's relevant and it's interesting. I for one was far more affected by the actual video of the murder than any news report about it.

>> ^gwiz665:

More murder porn! But seriously, that last one is News, it's relevant and it's interesting. I for one was far more affected by the actual video of the murder than any news report about it.


I tried to be clear above, that I don't care if we allow snuff or not: I will vote against videos that disgust me no matter what we decide to label them. I just think it's stupid that we say "No videos depicting graphical loss of life (unless it's newsworthy)." Last time I checked, someone being murdered is always newsworthy.

According to the current guidelines, the "newsworthy" can be invoked only if the "snuff" portion is a small bit of a lengthy video.

What was posted was less than a minute. So it violates the current guidelines, with no mechanism in place to invoke the written guidelines.

Then there is the separate question of -- why do we even have "newsworthy" in the guidelines at all.

Seems to me we have two discussion statements on one SiftTalk.

1) I think we need a mechanism to invoke the snuff rule quickly, rather than weeks after the fact.

2) I think that the death of a human should never be shown on a video, under any circumstances.

To me, #1 is an easy agreement -- there is already the "ban" function, just use that or create one labeled "snuff"

#2 -- Man, I don't know. My inclination is to leave the guidelines as they are written. If there is a 6-10 minute video that indeed is "lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary", I would hate to ban it for a short bit included in the middle. It is like the Supreme Court ruling. To paraphrase, because I am too lazy to look it up -- "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." I keep putting the word "snuff" in quotes because of what I always understood the word to mean -- the filming of women killed as pornography, which isn't what is meant by "snuff" on the Sift. When the clip is short without "educational" content, then it starts to slide into perverse territory. When do you get there? Eye of the beholder. Hence the need to move the vid to SiftTalk and decide as a community.

My five cents.

isn't this like the time we tried to define porn after someone posted some hilarious and educational videos from the everything is terrible site??

and probably the countless other times we've attempted to collectively define pornography to avoid future confusion?

you can't define this stuff adequately enough to make concrete guidelines that will never be bent or questioned. you can't seal the envelope shut, that's the history of censorship.

(disclaimer: i'm not being douchey and throwing the "CENSORSHIP fit" on this sifttalk post, at all. the tone of that statement was very neutral and matter of fact.)

because i believe it impossible to adequately define and regulate, i remain indifferent to the guidelines that exist now or in the future. i also do not watch any of the videos where people get hurt or killed. my personal preference is to completely refrain from watching them, ever. i even say "i didnt watch this video but.. blah blah" if i want to leave a comment in an interesting thread. i'm perfectly happy sifting this way. a suggestion i would like to make is maybe a tag for "violent/graphic content" maybe those aren't the right words to use, but i really do absolutely avoid watching videos where people are hurt or killed graphically on screen and i suspect im not the only one who sifts this way. i'm not complaining that those videos exist here on the site, and i can usually infer the videos content from the comment thread before viewing... but a warning tag might be nice.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I'll take a bit of ambiguity over having to allow all videos of people graphically blowing their brains out. I actually think this rule has been applied with reasonable consistency and has served the community well.

Snuff is not entertainment (in popular view).
This is a "for entertainment" site.
No Snuff, thanks

If I want to see this type of "news", I'll go to liveleak directly.