211–220 of 316 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
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…
In what sense "child predators" are an issue? Because they leave disgusting comments?
> perhaps your daughter will grow up preferring to have a more private life
... or perhaps she will grow up preferring to get as much publicity as possible. But if her parents do not publish that video on YouTube - she would lose that opportunity.
In any case, this publishing decision is in hands of her parents, and clearly, parents made up their mind (and decided to publish that video).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If I was worried about the public seeing stuff, I'd just make things unlisted, and sometimes I do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
> I don't know that I could do better than this video did at that stated goal.
What is this supposed to establish? That creeps can get off on this video? Creeps get off on mundane things all the time. It establishes nothing.
>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?
Since the artists in the video are generally those creating it, sure.
Presumably you mean would I leave my daughter in the care of someone who enjoyed such videos. If I knew them, sure. If I didn't know them, it wouldn't really add much information. It would slightly alter my prior against them, but that's not saying much. In the space of non-pornographic things that creeps would get off on, this video surely ranks higher than average. But this isn't an indictment of the content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered that your child might really regret all this stuff you're publishing about them when they're older? I don't exactly care myself but I do appreciate that my kid isn't capable of consenting to having his childhood published. So I don't do it. It seems really odd that you're reason for making that call is, "meh, why not?"
What exactly is "all this stuff"? Photos of her playing? I think about things she might actually be concerned about, but I see no reason she should be concerned about it, so no I'm not going to worry about it. If I was concerned, it might be about "should I put her in a dress or have her wear pants?" Because if she is wearing a skirt, someone could see her underwear, god forbid. YouTube or not. At least on YouTube, i…
Privacy is a real thing, and worrying about it isn't mutually exclusive with any other concerns. I'll be honest and say I'm somewhat disturbed by your whataboutism and nonchalant deflection of the fact you're pervasively invading your child's privacy and posting it online for all to see, consent be damned. Yes, you "see no reason" to be concerned, and that's your choice to make as a parent, but at the same time it's an extreme stance you've taken when, as other commentators have pointed out, the safest and most logical thing is to be more conservative with sharing such information.
Yay. Apocalypse 2.0 on its way. Looking forward to: 1. Any videos with footage of kids in them de-monetised. 2. Comments disabled by default on any sub 100k subscriber channels 3. Mandatory ID verification to be allowed to comment.
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…
>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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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.