Convicted One Euclid Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see? Well, just in illustration, when you earlier posted " He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. " one of the other members here replied to you that evidently at least one person thought so,...I actually suspected they were talking about themself.
Euclid Who is the observer seeing what they want to see in this case? What is it they they want to see?
Well, just in illustration, when you earlier posted " He was recording the conductor without his consent. But, he was not doing so maliciously. " one of the other members here replied to you that evidently at least one person thought so,...I actually suspected they were talking about themself.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted One ....Perception is a funny thing, and often rules the day, inspite of reality. I frequently am vexxed when after making a vague or otherwise innocuous comment, some other person will read unintended meaning in my words, usually giving me credit for the most hostile possible interpretation you could possibly infer.
....Perception is a funny thing, and often rules the day, inspite of reality.
I frequently am vexxed when after making a vague or otherwise innocuous comment, some other person will read unintended meaning in my words, usually giving me credit for the most hostile possible interpretation you could possibly infer.
YouTube Community Guidelines prohibit:
“Maliciously recording someone without their consent”
I have no idea what they think that means. But malice has a fairly specific definition. It must include the intent to do harm. If no such intent is expressed by the perpetrator, how can it be proven to have existed? If it can’t be proven to have existed, how can there be malice?
It makes me wonder why the rule does not say you can’t record someone without their consent, or you can’t record someone who objects. Apparently those two behaviors are okay with YouTube. But they draw the line by prohibiting the malicious recording of someone without their consent.
If malice is required, it must be knowable. Somebody merely stating that they feel like someone was treating them with malice does not establish that they were treated with malice. A lot of people take offense when none was intended. Nothing can be done about that.
Just as you can't get into the mind of the Conductor to know that he did not feel that JT intended to inflict harm; you also can't get into the mind of JT to know whether he intended to cause harm. So the intent to cause harm must have external evidence such as threats or aggression.
If I had to speculate, it would be that the issue had nothing to do with malice. I suspect that NS contacted YouTube and told them JT was trespassing. I am quite sure that would have violated a YouTube rule.
Do we even know that YouTube took the video down? Maybe JT took it down. Maybe JT looks in on this forum, and he saw the hubbub and figured he might want to play it safe.
In fact, (and you might want to sit down before reading this) maybe Jaw Tooth IS ONE OF US!!!! The horror !!!!! Be afraid, be very afraid.
Still in training.
Gee, all this time I thought the engineers were waving back at me. I suspect now they were just concealing their faces?
Multi-tasking. Plus you have to throw in running the engine.
Lithonia OperatorDo we even know that YouTube took the video down? Maybe JT took it down. Maybe JT looks in on this forum, and he saw the hubbub and figured he might want to play it safe.
When you click on it:
This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Aha. Thanks, zug. I never clicked on it again after watching once.
zugmann Lithonia Operator Do we even know that YouTube took the video down? Maybe JT took it down. Maybe JT looks in on this forum, and he saw the hubbub and figured he might want to play it safe. When you click on it: This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service.
Lithonia Operator Do we even know that YouTube took the video down? Maybe JT took it down. Maybe JT looks in on this forum, and he saw the hubbub and figured he might want to play it safe.
Good to know that there is some confirmation that the videographer was out of line.
charlie hebdo zugmann Lithonia Operator Do we even know that YouTube took the video down? Maybe JT took it down. Maybe JT looks in on this forum, and he saw the hubbub and figured he might want to play it safe. When you click on it: This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Terms of Service. Good to know that there is some confirmation that the videographer was out of line.
All I see is an opinion with no explanation of the reasoning whatsoever. No confirmation about who was out of line with the three subjects involved.
Euclid All I see is an opinion with no explanation of the reasoning whatsoever. No confirmation about who was out of line with the three subjects involved.
Backshop Euclid All I see is an opinion with no explanation of the reasoning whatsoever. No confirmation about who was out of line with the three subjects involved. It's not an opinion, it's a "rule". You're just being obtuse, as usual.
It's not an opinion, it's a "rule". You're just being obtuse, as usual.
Euclid Backshop Euclid All I see is an opinion with no explanation of the reasoning whatsoever. No confirmation about who was out of line with the three subjects involved. It's not an opinion, it's a "rule". You're just being obtuse, as usual. No rule has been cited.
No rule has been cited.
Within the TOS are community standards.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en
charlie hebdo Within the TOS are community standards. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en
That is part of the rules, but there is a lot more in other sections. I looked at them a few days ago when I posted their rule that states that it is not permissible to “Maliciously record someone without their consent.”
I offered that as one possible explanation for the removal of the video because the notice only says that the video violated YouTube guidelines. However, that may or may not have been the issue that invoked the removal of the video. And even if it is, the language is ambiguous because it lists two conditions as follows:
Recording with malice.
Recording without consent of the recorded.
The construction of the rule phrase means that both conditions must exist in order for the rule to be violated, so I asked what evidence was there of JT acting with malice? If there was no malice, the rule has not been violated.
However the rule language is odd and it is impossible to know what it really means. But this is what I think it means according to YouTube:
It is against the rules to record someone without their consent, because doing so is malicious.
Yet legally, it is not a violation to record someone without their consent, no matter how malicious anyone thinks it is. But there is nothing that requires YouTube rules to not exceed what the law requires.
However, if that is the rule and the YouTube reasoning for the video removal, it is highly inconsistent because YouTube hosts a whole genre of videos of people video recording people and facilities which are on private property. These people being videoed have not consented, and the person recording the video is doing so from a public sidewalk.
These people recording the videos are doing so to make the point that they have the legal right to do so. In each video, the person recording is confronted with a highly indignant and demanding individual who claims the video maker is violating the law and so the complainant calls the police.
The police show up and get into an intense debate with the video maker. The outcome varies from arresting the video maker to taking no action against him.
These numerous videos show people vigorously protesting against being recorded without their concent. YouTube apparenly sees no violation of the rules when these videos are posted to their site.
Euclid charlie hebdo Within the TOS are community standards. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en That is part of the rules, but there is a lot more in other sections. I looked at them a few days ago when I posted their rule that states that it is not permissible to “Maliciously record someone without their consent.” I offered that as one possible explanation for the removal of the video because the notice only says that the video violated YouTube guidelines. However, that may or may not have been the issue that invoked the removal of the video. And even if it is, the language is ambiguous because it lists two conditions as follows: Recording with malice. Recording without consent of the recorded. The construction of the rule phrase means that both conditions must exist in order for the rule to be violated, so I asked what evidence was there of JT acting with malice? If there was no malice, the rule has not been violated. However the rule language is odd and it is impossible to know what it really means. But this is what I think it means according to YouTube: It is against the rules to record someone without their consent, because doing so is malicious. Yet legally, it is not a violation to record someone without their consent, no matter how malicious anyone thinks it is. But there is nothing that requires YouTube rules to not exceed what the law requires. However, if that is the rule and the YouTube reasoning for the video removal, it is highly inconsistent because YouTube hosts a whole genre of videos of people video recording people and facilities which are on private property. These people being videoed have not consented, and the person recording the video is doing so from a public sidewalk. These people recording the videos are doing so to make the point that they have the legal right to do so. In each video, the person recording is confronted with a highly indignant and demanding individual who claims the video maker is violating the law and so the complainant calls the police. The police show up and get into an intense debate with the video maker. The outcome varies from arresting the video maker to taking no action against him. These numerous videos show people vigorously protesting against being recorded without their concent. YouTube apparenly sees no violation of the rules when these videos are posted to their site.
Reading this thread has forced me to recognize one aspect that I never before suspected.
All these tubers who follow cops around, record and post videos of trivial arrests, might they too be working in cahoots with the styled "victims" of the encounters, to provoke rehearsed incidents, just for the wow factor?
I think people are starting to learn from the Cable News Channels that if you pack emotion or controversy into a video it's gets more clicks or hits on the internet and drives up your viewership (revenue).
Convicted OneAll these tubers who follow cops around, record and post videos of trivial arrests, might they too be working in cahoots with the styled "victims" of the encounters, to provoke rehearsed incidents, just for the wow factor?
You might be closer to the truth than you think...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I suspect that part of it too stems from how different people have varying levels of interest in the "human aspect" of stories.
If some guy posts a video titled "Bigboy steams into Podunk", and the video depicts 4 1/2 minutes of yokels explaining why steam restoration is important to them, followed by 30 seconds of the train passing by,,,,I'm going to feel shortchanged. But some seem to eat that kinda thing up.
To me, doing that sort of thing feels like I've been tricked out of 4 1/2 minutes of my life, by a videographer trying to stretch his screentime.
Convicted OneTo me, doing that sort of thing feels like I've been tricked out of 4 1/2 minutes of my life, by a videographer trying to stretch his screentime.
Some guy posted a video even that stated that "Shoestring the Hobo" makes at least $76,000.00 a year from his YouTube hobo videos and showed his calculations based on viewership and ad revenue. When I read that I wonder about all the folks giving him free food and lodging. Granted he is honest in the video and states he works as a day laborer at some of his stops and pays rent for a furnished apartment in Johnstown, TN. So it is not like he is hiding he is financially independent.
We had a guy that reminds me of video dude. Fellow member of NRHS group. Would see him couple times a yr I attended a meeting. Had him on phone contact list. One spring several yrs ago, I bid to switchman extra bd and worked only Sa/Su providing no one layoff during wk. Great gig. This dude would come by, watch us switch and bring donuts for us. That was all cool and he stayed out of the way. Keep in mind he has my phone #. One Sun, we go o/d 0630, like normal. first move like 10 min later, only 2 trks to switch, got it done, engs bk to tie-up spot 0815, tie up go home 0830, 2 hrs TTOD. Couple hours later I go to church, lv phone in truck. When I come out, had VM from him. Talking loud almost combative tone wanting know why we did not work as he showed up w/donuts and no one around. That p/o me. Did not respond to call and for him, good thing.
Couple yrs later, w/same dude involved, I was on job that p/u cars @ that yd and took them 6 miles south to spot. Left yd one eve. Called DS on phone to get signal as would not answer radio. Again, got a VM like next day wanting to know how we got down there w/o him not knowing it and not hearing anything wondering if a new radio channel was used. None of his business in that phone was used. I told my crew of this. The condr (I was brkmn) started to use the phone while sitting in yard to get the signal to come out and depart.Hence no one w/a scanner could hear that and not know what we were doing.I did not respond again to what was considered a rude VM. I deleted him off email thread and no longer was this pest getting "heads up" messages from me of like "this train will be here so-so time, this train has NS decorated eng on it by such-such location, o/b crew for this train o/d this time, so on, so forth. He had an inside info link and ruined it for himself. The NRHS group folded up like 4 yrs ago and since then, have not dealt w/him, seen him and that is fine. Nice not getting rude stupid VM calls that show no respect for others.
SF: There are people like the one you described that people in my profession encounter sometimes. They have boundary issues, sometimes severe, occasionally becoming dangerous.
charlie hebdoSF: There are people like the one you described that people in my profession encounter sometimes. They have boundary issues, sometimes severe, occasionally becoming dangerous.
You mean they aren't the most important person in the world? Do tell!
I think we've all run into "that" person - perhaps an early version of "Karen?"
tree68You mean they aren't the most important person in the world?
I'd suspect that someone expecting privacy out in wide open view might have "boundry" issues, as well.
It's a bit of a stretch, but depending on their history, could this be considered stalking?
Convicted One tree68 You mean they aren't the most important person in the world? I'd suspect that someone expecting privacy out in wide open view might have "boundry" issues, as well.
tree68 You mean they aren't the most important person in the world?
Are you serious? Or some odd humor, thus the misspelling of "boundry" in quotes? The railroad employees was being harassed in his own home, not in public.
charlie hebdoThe railroad employees was being harassed in his own home, not in public.
If he feels he needs more privacy, tell him to close a window.
I'll be in the Cincinnati-Dayton area tomorrow. I hope that I don't run into you-know-who...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.