Nestle, Disney Pull YouTube Ads, Joining Furor Over Child Videos • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by mc32 » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

djsumdog wrote: post #91

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…

I mean, there are probably people who buy DVDs of gymnastics events to get their jollies on it. Even in the VHS days, there were pros that would video competitions for parents and kids to buy if they wanted. It's not a new idea, the medium is just new.

Ok, but we have new tools and they can be used to counter this unproductive negative trend. It’s not as if Google isn’t a leader in ML, what have you.

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

#102

Post by rixrax » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #66

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…

>> Just get rid of comments, which are mostly useless crap anyway.

Exactly this. And same for FB. Forced moderation.

I had a video in Youtube that somehow managed to get >100k views. The comments were absolutely worthless junk. I cant even understand why would someone go write most of that stuff. Probably the only close to grammatically correct comments were the ones that asked if they could use video somewhere in some form or the other.

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

#103

Post by on_and_off » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

anth_anm wrote: post #17

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…

Some posted a video of a guy who was making this same sort of video, but about a 13 year old doing ASMR. That's actually creepy. I don't think we can stop pedos leering at kids online. In person you can tell them to get lost or call the cops.

I saw the video you are talking about.

The worst part is that I disagree with his claim, or rather I don't think he makes a strong argument that these videos are _intentionally_ sexual. It looks to me like a kid doing kid stuff. I might have made the same videos at her age _but_ it is still sexualized by some people.

I am not sure what's a good solution to that could be. According to these new articles, it looks like any video showing a kid is potentially sexualized.

Banning all kids on youtube look a bit extreme and would raise its own set of problems. And at this point, just having a kid in any movie/series has the same consequences

So yeah .. not sure we can stop that. And if you are sharing timestamp of kids doing squats, you are probably too far gone that just asking you to see a psychiatrist is enough.

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

#104

Post by Yntec » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #76

benj111 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing my partner and I disagree about is taking pictures of our kids in the bath or paddling pool, on the basis they might end up in the public domain somewhere. My personal opinion is that it's the other guys problem, if they want to sexualise images of my kids, if I have to self sensor, we've already lost. But as my partner points out principles don't count for much if you've got pedos trading pictures of your…

I don't think _taking_ photos should be a problem, but what do you do with them afterward? I see people posting photos and videos of their children in public Instagram accounts all the time, and I think that's a terrible thing to do. Not because creeps might get off on them (though of course that's bad), but because it shows that the parents -- who have been entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their minor childr…

I guess you should keep your kids locked in your house as well, since the outside is full of strangers that could look at them in the streets. And the only thing worse than someone looking at photos or videos of your kids is seeing your kids live, because they exist, are visible, and people have eyes.

I think the solution is to create a new kid of clothing, that covers the kid wholly, no inch of skin to be shown, that is put whenever the kid needs to be seen in public, to end this terrible invasion of the kid's privacy whenever anyone takes a look at them outside.

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

#105

Post by CyberDildonics » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #26

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.

>YouTube only seems to do something when it's a controversy and Ad dollars are on the line "Humans respond to incentives" isn't really surprising IMO.

You can hire firefighters, I would rather hire people who know how to build a house that doesn't burn down.

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

#106

Post by movedx » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

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…

An eleven year old shouldn't be uploading content to YouTube. An eleven year old doesn't understand the second or third order consequences of their actions when they upload a video of themselves, along with their friends, trying on bikinis in their bedrooms.

If you're under 16, your content, and the uploading of it, should be supervised. Why are we letting our children run free on the Internet? You wouldn't let them run free on a highway and the Internet is just as dangerous but in different ways.

I believe YouTube need to implement a system of age verification for content creators. 16+ minimum if you ask me. If the parents do the uploading, whelp, you found your issue (if any arise)

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

#107

Post by movedx » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

An eleven year old shouldn't be uploading content to YouTube. An eleven year old doesn't understand the second or third order consequences of their actions when they upload a video of themselves, along with their friends, trying on bikinis in their bedrooms.

If you're under 16, your content, and the uploading of it, should be supervised. Why are we letting our children run free on the Internet? You wouldn't let them run free on a highway and the Internet is just as dangerous but in different ways.

I believe YouTube need to implement a system of age verification for content creators. 16+ minimum if you ask me. If the parents do the uploading, whelp, you found your issue (if any arise)

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

#108

Post by freeflight » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

14 wrote: post #31

Youtube wants to cater to everyone but to me it is clear Youtube is a risky place for a child. I let my kids use the site but I have no expectations of anything less then we are seeing here and try to keep an eye from behind. But I myself have found these types of wormholes he talked about in the video. Searching for massage techniques and saw a pretty girl so clicked it then next thing I know I am down a worm hole o…

> Youtube wants to cater to everyone but to me it is clear Youtube is a risky place for a child.

The Internet, in general, is a "risky" place for a child, always has been and always will be. But trying to "child-proof" this whole thing will just completely destroy what little remains of its original idea. Doesn't YouTube by now have curated categories with specific themes? Imho it shouldn't be that difficult for them to offer something like that.

And yes, YouTube is full of weird semi-soft-core content, which I consider quite amusing and innocent in its own way. It's kind of cute to think there are so many users on there who seem to be completely incapable of finding actual porn on the Internet, and instead need to use YouTube as the digital equivalent of a Gloria's Secret underwear catalog.

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

#109

Post by djsumdog » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

cronix wrote: post #66

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…

They'd probably have to get rid of playlists too. Like the other comment said, a lot of these are just innocent videos, many of which kids make themselves. Either that or they're videos from sports games or dance competitions.

The videos themselves are pretty normal. It's the context that the playlists place them in that's at issue.

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

#110

Post by Swizec » Wed, Feb 20, 2019, 10:51 PM UTC

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

> you are publishing your video to the public when you upload the file

Due to various cognitive biases most people fail to realize just how big and far reaching that public is.

To share an example from my own experience a few years ago. I wrote a blogpost. I love writing blogs and sharing them with The Public. That's why I write it.

In one of them I used an Xkcd comic. My entire audience, anyone I could ever imagine reading it, knows XKCD and loved it.

But then that blog got 100,000 views. Then 200,000. Then it spiraled. Suddenly I was flamed from all sides, called a disgusting human being and all sorts of things. Why? Because I didn't correctly attribute that XKCD comic.

"Yay my friends and their friends and liek 1000 people saw my thing" is a completely different "public" than when THE public sees your thing. Most people imagine the former when they think "Oh I'm uploading this and it's going to be public"