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

201–210 of 316 posts

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

#201

Post by hackinthebochs »

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #199
hackinthebochs wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I can't think of a single element to add How about explicit language? >and getting so close cannot be accidental Probably because sexual arousal and ASMR are both physiological responses.

>How about explicit language? Can you point to another piece of media, say something on the Disney Channel, where adding a few curse words would turn that production from innocent children's entertainment into soft core pornography? If not why is that a unique feature to this particular video?

Somehow I knew you weren't actually going to accept your own stated criteria.

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

#202

Post by rrix2 »

nitwit005 wrote: post #191
kelnos wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why do you need to post publicly rather than marking it as unlisted and sharing the link with people you know and trust? Not always realistic. If you record some boyscouts event, you probably don't know the name of everyone there, let alone account information. People often email a link, and then people share it by forwarding it. Alternatively, of course, you could upload it to some website for your organization, b…

unlisted links shared via email are still able to be opened by anyone with a link. They don't show up in recommendations and search results, but they're not private/whitelisted.

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

#203

Post by MagicPropmaker »

dragonwriter wrote: post #174
Someone1234 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright strikes are automatic, and you can dispute ones like that as fair usage.

Since when is recording and publicly publishing a performance that includes copyrighted music licensed for public performance as part of a live event but specifically and explicitly not for rerecording and distribution (as would normally be the case for the type of recital described, assuming the dance studio was on the ball with licensing) fair use?

You are absolutely right, of course. The person who thinks this is "fair use" is a worse than a thief. The thief knows he's doing something wrong (has a moral compass). This guy just rationalizes his theft.

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

#204

Post by magnetic »

throwaway-1283 wrote: post #84
_coveredInBees wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 afraid not a lot of parents/people would be willing to pay for such service, so I'm unsure this is going to happen any time soon.

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

#205

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway-1283 wrote: post #55
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…

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…

[deleted]

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

#206

Post by mcny »

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…

> 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)

I strongly oppose this nonsense. Should I have insert my "age verification identifier" or "drink from the verification can" every time I want to do something on the Internet to prove I am of legal age? If you can't control your kids, you shouldn't have kids. Most children under sixteen have legal guardians. If you are a legal guardian, you are responsible for your children. People get up in arms when we say it takes a village to raise a child but then they turn around and make these absurd demands. You can't have it both ways!

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

#207

Post by umeshunni »

minimaxir wrote: post #23
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.

That is why tech journalism is very important!

Too bad it doesn't exist.

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

#208

Post by fuzz4lyfe »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #201
fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How about explicit language? Can you point to another piece of media, say something on the Disney Channel, where adding a few curse words would turn that production from innocent children's entertainment into soft core pornography? If not why is that a unique feature to this particular video?

Somehow I knew you weren't actually going to accept your own stated criteria.

I'm just pointing out that you are engaging in special pleading[0] here. I've seen pornographic videos that did not have explicit language prior to the sexual acts taking place. In fact most of them are like that during the brief interludes of plot that justify the sex.

Let me put it this was if I was an evil person and my goal was to create a legal facsimile of child pornography I don't know that I could do better than this video did at that stated goal. Perhaps legally it doesn't cross a line but can you honestly say that you'd leave your daughter in the care of the person who made this video to do the same?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

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

#209

Post by diminoten »

robbrown451 wrote: post #182
diminoten wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hence the "is enablist shit"... And no, being lumped in with pedophiles matters. I am trying to warn him who he sounds like, not making a rational argument against his position. It's up to him to decide if he wants to sound like a pedophile.

Well I'm talking about how I prioritize decisions about protecting my own daughter from harm from others, not about whether it is ok for me to look at / think about other people's daughters. Given that, if I sound like a pedophile, to me that says more about the listener than the speaker.

Probably, but the listener may also be a judge, or the parents of the kids your daughter plays with, or someone else who has a material effect on the quality of your life.

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

#210

Post by bduerst »

robbrown451 wrote: post #82
malvosenior wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Based on that use case, you would probably be better of using a product like Google Photos instead of Youtube, since the latter is more for publicly broadcasting. Just my 2 cents.
Post reply on HN