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

81–90 of 316 posts

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

#81

Post by yesenadam »

pedrocx486 wrote: post #28
post_break wrote: post #15

YouTube only seems to do something when it's a controversy and Ad dollars are on the line. Putting out fire after fire I don't know how the CEO keeps her job. Daddyofive, weird children ASMR, elsa-gate, algorithm being 2 clicks away from weird obscure kid videos.

Worth mentioning PayMoneyWubby and his quest to find and show weird sh*t. It's plain crazy what YouTube hosts and some people barely know about.

I watched a bit of one of his videos after it was linked to on here. So creepy! I can't imagine who watches and enjoys all his stuff. He was much creepier and more disturbing than any of the videos he played. Do he and his viewers frame it as investigation, news, valuable service to the community, or something? Just seemed creepy and exploitative (He makes money from showing videos and ranting about no-one should see them, I guess), porn for hypocritical prigs... Like those christians who spend their lives railing against porn and sin - not noticing they enjoy it on some level.

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

#82

Post by robbrown451 »

malvosenior wrote: post #69
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?

Because a few people subscribe (family and friends), and I put them in a playlist, and so on.

I mean, I don't care. She's just playing at the playground. I didn't think about it at the time, I guess I could, but I don't see why it matters. If I was concerned about anything, it would be about creepy people seeing her in the real world.

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

#83

Post by pests »

acl2149 wrote: post #34
baddox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my own sisters would shoot with our dad's camcorder. Your family camcorder videos probably weren't made available for checkout at the public library, filed under "young girls doing gymnastics" in the library's card catalog. If they were, I imagine your family and many members of the public would be creeped out or upset. > but what else do you do h…

Not sure that analogy makes sense. YouTube makes it pretty clear you are publishing your video to the public when you upload the file. You actually have to confirm the video is going to be public. It's not like YouTube is raiding the family archives for the content

Part of the problem is the publishers. They know what they are uploading and want it to be public. You are taking the analogy too far.

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

#84

Post by throwaway-1283 »

_coveredInBees wrote: post #75
throwaway-1283 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'm not a fan of "big govt" in many cases, I hope there is legislation that prohibits parents from sharing photos, videos, etc. of their kids publicly (e.g. a public IG account, a public YT channel) without consent (e.g. meaning the child would have to be of an age where they can even legally give consent). Children have the right to privacy, and it is crazy how many parents do not think twice before shari…

I feel sorry for kids these days, thinking about how videos and pictures (and plenty of embarassing ones at that) are plastered all over social media by their parents with them having no ability to ever exercise any control on limiting the sharing of the videos and pictures once they are older and potentially bothered/annoyed about it all. That being said, it's hard to really regulate this. When someone has a baby, t…

As a parent you should be able to share to a private FB, a private IG, a private YT account. That's fine, because you presumably have control over who sees those photos (hopefully people you actually know).

I'm also not talking about someone sharing a photo publicly with someone else's kid in the background.

I just mean as a parent you should need consent to share a video of your kids to a public social media channel. If your kid cannot give consent because they are underage or refuses, then you shouldn't be able to share it.

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

#85

Post by Loughla »

_coveredInBees wrote: post #75
throwaway-1283 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'm not a fan of "big govt" in many cases, I hope there is legislation that prohibits parents from sharing photos, videos, etc. of their kids publicly (e.g. a public IG account, a public YT channel) without consent (e.g. meaning the child would have to be of an age where they can even legally give consent). Children have the right to privacy, and it is crazy how many parents do not think twice before shari…

I feel sorry for kids these days, thinking about how videos and pictures (and plenty of embarassing ones at that) are plastered all over social media by their parents with them having no ability to ever exercise any control on limiting the sharing of the videos and pictures once they are older and potentially bothered/annoyed about it all. That being said, it's hard to really regulate this. When someone has a baby, t…

>Hopefully my kids will appreciate that we never posted pictures of them publicly on social media (only shared privately within immediate family). At the very least, it's one less thing they'll have to worry about as they grow up.

The trick is to live like it's 1980. We have many, many pictures of our child, but only 10-15 on social media (of things like winning sporting events or the like). Everything else is in digital form on drives in our home server or printed in physical frames. If/when the child decides they want to do something with their photos, there they are.

Also handy to have on the home server because we can turn any screen into a digital frame on our network. That will be great when they bring their first boy/girlfriend home.

People just feel the impulsive need to share literally everything on social media. Everything is a competition for likes and attention. It's disgusting.

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

#86

Post by freeflight »

sigmaris wrote: post #71

Instead of hiring enough humans to review the content they make money from, Google's approach to catching this stuff seems to be doing a global search for videos with "CP" in related text and auto-banning the channels: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47278362 and then claiming that they're making use of "artificial intelligence" to moderate the platform.

I'd be really interested in how many humans you'd consider "enough humans" to actually be able to make an impact?

Because it's quite easy to underestimate just how much content is constantly uploaded to YouTube, how much of it is watched and reported, on a per second basis [0].

With numbers like that, you could probably fully employ a small nation of people and still wouldn't be able to review and catch everything. That is the main reason why they try to automate all their solutions, they need to work at a massive scale, manual reviews simply can't do that.

[0] http://www.everysecond.io/youtube

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

#87

Post by diminoten »

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…

> The thing is, even if someone is a perv and gets off on this sort of thing, it isn't endangering her.

Careful with that idea, it's some pretty enablist shit, and you most frequently hear it coming from the perverts themselves.

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

#88

Post by kelnos »

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…

While certainly child predators are an issue, I don't even need to consider this sort of thing from that angle.

Why do you need to post publicly rather than marking it as unlisted and sharing the link with people you know and trust? Would you personally like to have a video posted of you in your underwear? Even if that's okay with you, perhaps your daughter will grow up preferring to have a more private life, and to keep things like that off the internet? But you've taken that choice away from her.

One of my favorite articles on this topic: https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/facebook-privacy-and-ki... (and a follow-up, after the author was informed that she had unwittingly allowed some photos of her daughter out onto the internet: https://slate.com/technology/2013/09/privacy-facebook-kids-d...). I don't know that I'd go as far as she has, creating a sort of "digital account trust", but I do like the approach of keeping a kid's private life off the internet until they're old enough to decide how much they want to share.

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

#89

Post by bearcobra »

0xADEADBEE wrote: post #41
baddox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my own sisters would shoot with our dad's camcorder. Your family camcorder videos probably weren't made available for checkout at the public library, filed under "young girls doing gymnastics" in the library's card catalog. If they were, I imagine your family and many members of the public would be creeped out or upset. > but what else do you do h…

While I take your point, the very act of uploading the video is akin to "going down to the library with a copy of the tape for anyone to rent" in this analogy, which does mitigate the degree of upset to an extent.

Mixing some metaphors here, but I've encountered a lot of people who view it like going to get your photos developed to share with family only, then finding that other people can order copies too

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

#90

Post by blaze33 »

ipsum2 wrote: post #37
acl2149 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that analogy makes sense. YouTube makes it pretty clear you are publishing your video to the public when you upload the file. You actually have to confirm the video is going to be public. It's not like YouTube is raiding the family archives for the content

> YouTube makes it pretty clear you are publishing your video to the public when you upload the file After working in tech for long enough, you realize that no one reads anything, even if its absolutely clear in the UI. And they will blame you for it.

Yes, indeed! : Myth #1: People read on the web https://uxmyths.com/post/647473628/myth-people-read-on-the-w...

I always have a hard time explaining to people carefully writing pagewalls that throwing out 90% of it would actually be more effective...

Post reply on HN