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

I think it's pretty darn well defined:

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.

I think the policy is good.

edit .. I'm not sure about that motocross clip.
He doesn't die in the clip, but .. I don't think he was doing much living after that clip either ..

The again, it does say "whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera"

So, what you're saying is, I can post a video of someone's head getting chopped off, so long as his heart is still beating and pumping blood out of his neck at the end of the video?

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

^that's an absurd technical reading - and goes against any reasonable interpretation of the guideline. *sentence softening smiley.

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

Although I'm not sure about that post either ... I'm inclined to say it should stay - we're not seeing his death here, and it was not particularly graphic in any case.

>> ^dag:
^that's an absurd technical reading - and goes against any reasonable interpretation of the guideline.

Of course it is. The point is that you need to draw the line somewhere, right? So, where is the line drawn? Because otherwise there will be disagreements like:

>> ^dag:
we're not seeing his death here, and it was not particularly graphic in any case.

Really? Not graphic? You just watched a man's neck snapped, just as cleanly as from a hanging. He fell from roughly 100 feet and landed squarely on his head, at which point his brain and spinal cord suffered irreversible damage. How much gore do you need to see before you consider it graphic?

It's like the (silly, I know) dagwood test for porn. Does it have to turn your stomach? Could I post a euthanasia vid so long as the patient was still speaking at the end of it? Or is the limit when his eyes close and he appears to be dead?

It seems somewhat clear when the person dies on camera (such as brain trauma), but I'm a little less clear on the "death after the fact" issue.

For instance, there was a video here a while back of a guy getting run over by a car (driver did it on purpose too). The guy that got run over did not die, and I don't think he was even seriously hurt. That isn't snuff.

However, would that distinction change if you learned that the guy died three days later due to his injuries? It would be pretty clear as to what caused his death, but whether or not he died at a later date wouldn't change what happened in the video. What happens when there is no confirmation that death occurred, even if it appears the most likely case (I would have assumed that the guy that got run over died if the video ended there)?

If this is ok:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Iraqi-Militia-Volunteers-try-to-take-out-155m-IED

Then I don't see the harm in the motocross vid.

I for one, only associate snuff with murder. Do you think he would rather be known as the man unafraid of pursuing the things he loved, or the man nobody ever heard of?

Personally, I would rather others not see a video of myself being murdered execution style; but I don't think I would mind if others saw a video of me dying in an avalanche while snowboarding down a vertical cliff face in Alaska, for example.

I don't have a big problem with the death issue itself (if it matters), but I do have a problem with more graphic scenes. For instance, watching a plane crash doesn't "bother" me even knowing that people died in the incident (though I feel sadness for them). However, I have a feeling that the motorcycle video would bother me, so I haven't watched it.

That also extends to "severe injury" videos. I kinda wish I hadn't watched the rope swing leg-snap video, or possibly even the guy that got shot in the eye with a paintball... those do "bother" me. I would prefer if there were a "severe graphic injury" warning, but what is "graphic" is also opinion.

I'll refrain from commenting on what should be allowed... I don't feel it is my place. Everyone is bothered by different things, and I'd be fine with some sort of warning that let me skip those videos by choice. The problem is that there are no well-defined lines with these issues, no matter how well the guidelines are written.

>> ^jonny:

Could I post a euthanasia vid so long as the patient was still speaking at the end of it? Or is the limit when his eyes close and he appears to be dead?


i have no problem with euthanasia videos. i think it can be a relevant, thought provoking topic. i think graphic videos of a biopolitical nature should certainly be allowed. though i dont really want to watch traumatic vehicle crashes with no other point but to say "hey, look at this fucked up thing someone filmed, bet that guys gonna die!" but noone is making me watch them either. i say the line should certainly be drawn at objectification/victimization/exploitation... but not videos of a newsworthy or educational value calling attention to such atrocities. (half my videos would be banned)

I agree with Zor.. If the only thing that makes it objectionable is the KNOWLEDGE that someone died, I don't think it should be removed.

ie. if the only way I know someone died is because of the title or someone's google skills, then it's not really snuff. Or, if I can change a title (and comments) and no one would otherwise object.. I think it is a dumb reason to remove a video.

Take for instance, motocross knocked silly after stunt. Or really really bad highway pile up. It's really dumb that a 100 car pile up can stay, but the truck collision has to go.. and it is nearly identical footage other than the knowledge someone died.

All the Iraqi UAV war porn has to go if the highway wreck from 500 ft away can't stay. I'm just going to dead it or send it all to discuss. I guess I'm going to have to be banned over this, so you might as well start a preemptive siftquistion if you can't follow you own guidelines.

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

Can we please recognise that we live in a world made up of shades of gray?

The tit-for-tat - "this was discarded so we must immediately discard these 10 other videos which I feel are worse" needs to stop.

We work by consensus and on a case by case basis, if you have a bunch of posts that think may be on the borderline of that gray area - by all means, let's discuss it.

>> ^dag:
I think it's pretty darn well defined:
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.




By this definition, the videos of the kid in Oakland who was murdered by the BART officer is snuff. These videos should either be removed from the site, or the definition in the FAQ changed.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Police-shoot-unarmed-man-laying-face-down-in-the-back
http://www.videosift.com/video/New-Video-Of-Bart-Cop-Shooting-Police-Manhandle-Victim-Aft

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

I disagree, in the context of that Okland video, it would be hard to say it was for entertainment - and it was part of a newsworthy and important news clip.

UAV laser guided bomb videos are only on this site as "explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment"

At the very least they are military propaganda. Much is true of IDF footage bombing schools and UN bldgs.

Is there an exception for war footage?

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

Hmmm, well an arial shot of buildings from 5,000 feet doesn't qualify as "explicit" for me. We should also consider the broader context - are these really being displayed for entertainment or to bring war atrocities to light? For me it would be the latter.

I'm fully with Psychologic on what I find hard to watch, and think that we do need some sort of tag for such videos. We have a NSFW tag for those that might be unsafe for watching at work, what about a * graphic tag for those that may turn the stomach or scar the mind of those who'd rather not watch such things?

I think that if you applied that to most of the 'grey area' videos then you'd be a good deal better off.

Of course, I also think indeed that all death for the sake of death videos should stay the hell off as well, but as Psychologic says, a video of a plane crash doesn't have the same mental impact as seeing one person killed or badly injured, even though the death toll exhibited by said video is a lot higher.

^ I will absolutely volunteer to run the * graphic channel.

(jes sayin)

Are candles being blown out considered snuff? What about sifts depicting a preparation of tobacco, either powdered and taken into the nostrils by inhalation or ground and placed between the cheek and gum?

>> ^dag:
Hmmm, well an arial shot of buildings from 5,000 feet doesn't qualify as "explicit" for me. We should also consider the broader context - are these really being displayed for entertainment or to bring war atrocities to light? For me it would be the latter.


Ah we are getting somewhere... 5000 feet death from above is OK.
500 feet of a freeway accident is NO NO.

Clearly the UAV war porn is NOT WAR CRIME footage as it is release by the US military or IDF and fills a certain niche in war porn circles. It is a kill all them muslim type entertainment and you are completely daft if you don't realize that is what it is.

What about Blackwater soldiers driving down the street shooting people? Maybe we only see cars swerve of the road and do not see pederstrians biting it, but hey, they deserved it right, they were probably setting up IADs. (did this video stick??)

So the limit is...
BUILDINGS DAMAGED -- YES
CARS DAMAGED -- NO

Please update the FAQ

^ Where on a gradient of grey shades does it switch from white to black?

I'm a math guy, so I understand your desire to strictly define this issue, but I don't think any obvious lines exist within the subject. How do you determine when death is the point of the video rather than incidental to it?

If you think you can create a guideline for this issue that would not be ambiguous on any video (other than allowing every video possible) then I'd love to see it, because I cannot think of one.

Criticizing a guideline is easy... formulating a perfect one is not. How do you think the guideline should be written?

It's a really easy guideline, much like the pr0n dagwood test.. and the obscenity "you'll know it when you see it" test.

Snuff is film of someone dying, dead or being killed for the purposes of shock or entertainment. Some common day event or something thousands of people witnessed and see all the time IS NOT SNUFF.

Motocross accident IS AN ACCIDENT. Maybe horrific, but a freaking NASCAR spectacle AND NOT SNUFF.

A highway pile up IS NOT SNUFF.

Some sensitive babies are really clueless. It's not an issue about offensive videos. It's about the bawwwww babies trying to exert control and power. It's no different then bitching over downvotes.

>> ^joedirt:
It's a really easy guideline, much like the pr0n dagwood test.. and the obscenity "you'll know it when you see it" test.

If that were the case then this discussion wouldn't be taking place. I could make a case for just about any video depicting death for any reason being educational.

Joedirt, stop being a fucking dick and make your point like an adult.

The snuff guideline is just that a guideline. It's all about context and explicitness. The same way with the porn guideline. As long as it is kept fuzzy, we're bound to get these fringe cases, where the community has to decide if we want it or not.

Do we really want it defined much clearer that we already have? Some videos are bound to be important, but crossing one of the defined lines. I would rather keep the thresholds this fuzzy, so we have some leeway in what we consider "snuff" here.

And remember that we don't go by the dictionary word "snuff" like we don't go by the dictionary word "porn". It's not that clearly defined.

You cant tell in the majority of videos posted by people if some one died, in the sift.

If the viewers have a visceral gut reaction to something that almost causes you to wretch, then you know its gone to far.



However in some youtube videos you can.

Search "f1 hits man" you will find the video, which is a documentary, however it does fit the sift snuff policy.

I submit that videos such as this fit the description of snuff, as defined by the Sift Guidelines.

Warning if you click on the link and watch the video I am not to be held liable for your reaction. Enter at your own risk. NOTE THIS LINK DOES NOT TAKE YOU TO THE VIDEO IT SELF. ONLY THE YOUTUBE SEARCH PAGE, THAT SHOWS THE NUMBER OF EMBEDS.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=f1+hits+man&aq=1&oq=f1+hits+

This link depicts the accident that killed Tom Pryce
There was an accident on the F1 Track. Causing the Race Marshals to come onto the track to put out a fire. One of the marshals carrying a fire extinguisher doesn't clear Tom Pryce's car. The marshal is torn up very badly, and the fire extinguisher kills Tom Pryce's. This footage is news worthy's, but extremely egregious.

Then there are videos that depict hockey players who have had their large blood vessels severed to music. That violates the policy, because it places no context on the situation. Only revels in the spilling of bodily fluids to music.