Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 316 posts

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#61

Post by hombre_fatal »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #49
hombre_fatal wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue is that whenever the topic of "child exploitation" comes up, there's always a lack of specifics. Both the specifics of what we're actually referring to and the specifics of an actual solution. Instead, everyone (like every media outlet and internet comment) casts a vote against "child exploitation". Who wouldn't? And the discussion stops there. "Whatever they're doing, it needs to stop!" For example, I bet m…

Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?

I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking.

Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#62

Post by anonymousab »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #2

>On Sunday, Matt Watson, a video blogger, posted a 20-minute clip detailing how comments on YouTube were used to identify certain videos in which young girls were in activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive, such as posing in front of a mirror and doing gymnastics. I looked at some of the videos that appeared in his report and it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my ow…

Several videos appeared to be re-uploads by people other than the original uploader.

I don't think there's an ideal solution. But they'd need some mix of detecting videos that would be prone to these kinds of comments, then subjecting the comments on those videos to higher scrutiny, such as stricter automatic detection/deletion/*(EDIT - Shadowbanning or hiding the comment as a "first pass" seems good) or even manual review.

Manually checking everything is impossible without severely hampering the freedom and capabilities of the platform, and automatically detecting everything is not possible without accepting a heck of a lot of false positives.

But putting more effort into a mix of the two would be better than what they appear to have been doing so far.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#63

Post by ed_elliott_asc »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #2

>On Sunday, Matt Watson, a video blogger, posted a 20-minute clip detailing how comments on YouTube were used to identify certain videos in which young girls were in activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive, such as posing in front of a mirror and doing gymnastics. I looked at some of the videos that appeared in his report and it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my ow…

I have a couple of kids 8 and 5 and I do let them upload videos but I check them first and if there was anything that I thought a pervert might like I edit out first.

There is no need for YouTube to have any video of my children a pervert might want to watch.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#64

Post by amagumori »

darawk wrote: post #6
justinsaccount wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ban kids Yes.

You want to ban videos of children from the internet because pedophiles might be aroused by them?

i mean, another angle is the parents that are posting videos of their kids online are not asking their kids for consent first, and the kids may be themselves unable to give consent. requiring videos of children to be unlisted seems completely reasonable to me.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#65

Post by tomp »

dontbenebby wrote: post #18
hombre_fatal wrote: post #2

>On Sunday, Matt Watson, a video blogger, posted a 20-minute clip detailing how comments on YouTube were used to identify certain videos in which young girls were in activities that could be construed as sexually suggestive, such as posing in front of a mirror and doing gymnastics. I looked at some of the videos that appeared in his report and it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my ow…

> I'm sure these videos do attract some weirdos in the comments, and in the next paragraph Youtube says that they want to moderate that activity, but what else do you do here? Ban kids uploading a video of their innocent pool party because some creeps might enjoy it? What about topless babies? What about the rights of the children? Maybe they should have the right to wait and decide, upon adulthood, whether they want…

Why just children though? Why not everyone? If someone uploads an embarrassing video of me without my consent, I don’t see why it would matter whether I’m a child or an adult...

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#66

Post by cronix »

Just get rid of comments, which are mostly useless crap anyway. Or force the content uploader to manually approve individual comments on their videos before they can be made public and hold the uploader responsible for everything shown.

The content is innocent (from what I've seen).

Might as well ban catalogs and all underwear/swimsuit ads. They show young girls (and boys) in underwear, swimsuits, leotards, etc. Some deviant somewhere will use that for purposes other than it was intended. Might as well get rid of it all, everywhere, because someone, somewhere will misuse it.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#67

Post by robbrown451 »

This just seems ridiculous. I post a lot of videos of my daughter to share with my family and friends, and generally don't care who looks at them any more than I care who looks at her (or what they are thinking) when we are in public. I've gotten a couple creepy comments here and there from random people who found them. (the comments weren't overtly sexual though, but I deleted them anyway) Here's an example of a harmless one that got such comments (note that my daughter is the one in the jeans, I tried to be careful when shooting it regarding the girl in the skirt): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p21NMw54Y0

I also notice that video has 10 times the number of views as the rest of the videos of her, presumably because of the title.

I had a couple videos from when she was younger and wearing diapers and a shirt when she was wading in the bay, and got a comment from someone who wanted to know what brand of diapers she was wearing. (wtf?) I deleted the comment of course, but a while later I see that YouTube has deleted the video for "inappropriate content" (double wtf). I mean, she was more covered up than if she was wearing a two piece bathing suit.

The thing is, even if someone is a perv and gets off on this sort of thing, it isn't endangering her. I'm not going to lose sleep over it. If I am really that worried about protecting her from pedophiles, I probably shouldn't take her anywhere in public, where someone could follow us home or otherwise directly cause her harm. I'm not going to live my life in that kind of fear.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#68

Post by nopriorarrests »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #61
nopriorarrests wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets be specific. My first question -- so, 12 y.o. girl being dressed in police uniform and acting like in an opening of a cheesy porn movie is your definition of "just kids having fun"?

I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking. Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.

I don't have an answer.

But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video".

This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reasons to shoot video like this.

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#69

Post by malvosenior »

robbrown451 wrote: post #67

This just seems ridiculous. I post a lot of videos of my daughter to share with my family and friends, and generally don't care who looks at them any more than I care who looks at her (or what they are thinking) when we are in public. I've gotten a couple creepy comments here and there from random people who found them. (the comments weren't overtly sexual though, but I deleted them anyway) Here's an example of a har…

Can I ask why you would make those videos public, instead of private and sharing them with just people you know?

Re: Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos

#70

Post by stickfigure »

pgrote wrote: post #29
jerf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ban kids uploading a video of their innocent pool party because some creeps might enjoy it?" Given everything else YouTube already does, I seriously, no sarcasm, don't see this as a particularly problematic solution. As ceejayoz pointed out, there's some thorny consent issues involved here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209766 (ceejayoz' point isn't much larger than my summary of it, but I wanted to give cr…

I upload unlisted videos to share with family. I batch and upload them on a monthly basis. Never had an issue with Youtube and my family videos. Last month one video was my daughter fully clothed in the bathroom dumping a cup of water on my son in the bathtub and both laughing. You could only see his head and chest. It was 10 seconds long and funny play between young siblings. It was instantly and automatically flagg…

There seems to be something wrong with this argument. You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right?

But then you think they can apply the algorithm more broadly? Wouldn't that just risk many more false positives and irate users?

Post reply on HN