Ann Vole wrote:
I think the methods of creating the image of the unplayed video in embedded videos can change at the control of the video hosting company and are created by the images in the video so it is entirely possible for an acceptable image be seen by the person embedding the video but a different and potentially rule-violating image may be seen later by those reading the thread. Simple links to the video eliminate that possibility.
I don't exactly understand what you are saying. But, if you are saying that someone from outside can change the play mode of the YouTube videos embedded on this forum then you're wrong. Actually, you tube videos when watched on You-Tube site are all set for AUTO-PLAY but when the links from these videos are embedded on this forum they do NOT play automatically. You have to click to get them started. This can not be changed unless it's done on this end.
In this respect, posting a link to a YouTube video or any picture for that matter is worse than embedding a video. Usually with the links, you have no idea what you're clicking on. A single click on a URL can take you to a most horrific and pornographic picture you can imagine. I am sure most of children are capable of a single click on a mouse. So, I cannot see any logical justification for allowing the links to "offensive" image and videos but not allowing the videos to be embedded as long as these videos do not display an offensive still image. Embedding a photograph is different. When you display a photo, anyone who can see the full content of the image with a single glance. I think what is important is that there is a clear warning to anything which my lead one to something that may offend them.
I don't think it's difficult to see the motivation behind this scrutiny. As a matter of fact, many videos I had embedded on the Sea Shepherd's operation against the criminal whale murder had footage of whales being killed in them. Why didn't anyone object to these videos?
Moreover, I am not going to respond to some more of Hunter's deceptive provocations above. I think it's obvious why Hunter is here. Some of us even find his user name offensive and instigating. I don't see much difference in posting here with name "Hunter" than someone going to a forum set up for discussion of women rights, feminism and women abuse and registering there using the name "Rapist." Perhaps, I should have my name changed to "Kill Hunters?"
I guess I am just going to have to embed the videos and images somewhere else.