On snuff, and its acceptability on the sift
So it seems like we've been having the "snuff" discussion a lot recently. Every time a new, potentially snuff-like video is posted, it gets *discussed and we have the same debate all over again. I think perhaps it may be a good idea to get a more concrete ruling on what is and is not acceptable on the sift.
I've made this argument before, but the way the rule is currently written in the guidelines is ambiguous -- and worse, it's self-contradictory. Let's take a look:
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.
First, snuff is defined as the "loss of human life displayed for entertainment." Okay. Fair enough. But wait, a couple of sentences down, there's a second definition. Suddenly, snuff is "any short clip in which a human fatality occurs." So, not just for entertainment then. Then there's also the whole "limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary" thing, which has been broadly and inconsistently interpreted to mean any clip that is "important" -- such as the clip of the girl dying in Iran, which is technically against the guidelines, but which was deemed to be acceptable. Which is fine, but the guidelines should be changed to reflect that policy.
I think it may be a good idea to just draw a line, and either say "yes, videos featuring fatalities can be posted, as long as they have some merit to them" or "no, important or not, we don't want those types of videos on this site" and then rewrite the rule so that it actually means something (as opposed to now, where it essentially says "You can't post snuff... except when you can; I dunno, whatevs man").
I've made this argument before, but the way the rule is currently written in the guidelines is ambiguous -- and worse, it's self-contradictory. Let's take a look:
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.
First, snuff is defined as the "loss of human life displayed for entertainment." Okay. Fair enough. But wait, a couple of sentences down, there's a second definition. Suddenly, snuff is "any short clip in which a human fatality occurs." So, not just for entertainment then. Then there's also the whole "limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary" thing, which has been broadly and inconsistently interpreted to mean any clip that is "important" -- such as the clip of the girl dying in Iran, which is technically against the guidelines, but which was deemed to be acceptable. Which is fine, but the guidelines should be changed to reflect that policy.
I think it may be a good idea to just draw a line, and either say "yes, videos featuring fatalities can be posted, as long as they have some merit to them" or "no, important or not, we don't want those types of videos on this site" and then rewrite the rule so that it actually means something (as opposed to now, where it essentially says "You can't post snuff... except when you can; I dunno, whatevs man").
Load Comments...
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.