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

161–170 of 316 posts

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

#161

Post by brianpgordon »

movedx wrote: post #107

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…

My 10-15 year old self would hate you. Most of what I even remember about being that age from my involvement in various online communities. I didn't have many friends at school so I talked to people in games and chat instead. To suggest that my parents should have to be there to "supervise" me is absurd. To some extent they tried to do this, and I resented it and I'm certain that it did no good at all. Not least because sanitizing access to the internet is impossible and if I wanted to get past a restriction of any kind I found a way.

Your kids talk to each other at school without parents going over their conversations to make sure everything is kosher. Interacting online isn't any different, as long as they know not to give out their physical location publicly or to strangers. Even more so these days, kids are digital natives. Cutting them off from the network is like giving them a lobotomy. They'll be well behaved, obedient, sessile outcasts.

Anyway, interacting online is so little like running free on the highway that it's difficult to even find a foothold to frame a counter-argument. It's a non sequitur.

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

#162

Post by NeedMoreTea »

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.

Those same parents might take a different view of the pro assembling an edited lowlights tape.

Which seems very close to crosslinking comments with timestamps on fully public videos, with advertising.

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

#163

Post by hackinthebochs »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #155
hackinthebochs wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't know anything about ASMR you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the ASMR-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.

>If you don't know anything about porn you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the porn-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen. is also true.

Some loose similarities does not establish the sexual nature of these kind of videos.

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

#164

Post by pgrote »

stickfigure wrote: post #70
pgrote wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right?

No. As I said, their rules. I have no idea if it is a false positive since I cannot get an answer as to what guideline was violated. I could have violated one of their guidelines.

Youtube doesn't owe me anything ... I use their service for free with unlisted videos to share with family. They make no money off the videos.

My point was if they can flag something like my video, I am sure they can flag the ones given as examples attracting the other people.

I can understand your point that false positives would generate more upset content creators who do make their videos public and would like ads run against them.

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

#165

Post by Asooka »

taneq wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well they should, because (the hypothetical) you built and deployed something that relied for safety on users doing something you knew they wouldn't do.

So in your world, we should just never give users nice things because we know they're stupid?

No, you make the default safe and make the "dangerous" option hidden behind an advanced menu, so at the very least you can be certain the user can read and follow directions. Like a two-stage weapon switch.

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

#166

Post by Yntec »

on_and_off wrote: post #103
anth_anm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Okay, can you reword that? What is wrong with kids doing squats? If nothing, then, what is wrong with timestamping kids doing squats?

The only thing I see wrong here is the sexualization, but it'd be us doing it if we assume the reason of the timestamp. Compare: Video of people playing soccer, someone adds a timestamp to a part when a guy passes the ball to another guy, would you think the timestamp was created because of sexual arousal and tell they need to see a psychiatrist? How is kid doing squats different?

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

#167

Post by johnisgood »

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…

It is funny though, because it is them who make the association... I would have never looked at it that way if they wouldn't have told me to.

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

#168

Post by watwut »

taneq wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well they should, because (the hypothetical) you built and deployed something that relied for safety on users doing something you knew they wouldn't do.

So in your world, we should just never give users nice things because we know they're stupid?

What if not reading those things is smart as almost all of it is crap? Then you are banking on them being reasonable but stats still in your odds.

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

#169

Post by pgrote »

brlewis wrote: post #59
pgrote wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

They sure can. They removed a video of mine for copyright because of background music in the environment where I was shooting.

> copyright because of background music

I feel you. Many of my videos have been flagged for copyright violations due to background music, but since they are unlisted and only for sharing among family, I'm ok with it.

There have been a couple of times they have muted a whole video for a snippet of music, but I've never had a video removed for music.

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

#170

Post by Asooka »

anonymousab wrote: post #62
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…

Youtube could leverage their existing ContentID system so reuploads of videos that are private are taken down and the accounts locked after three strikes.
Post reply on HN