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

221–230 of 316 posts

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

#221

Post by nerfhammer »

Swizec wrote: post #110
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

> 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…

but in this example would you blame wordpress or whatever is hosting your blog?

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

#222

Post by dragonwriter »

throwaway-1283 wrote: post #130
Aunche wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that also ban child actors? Also, a lot of famous Youtubers like Mark Rober show their kids or newphews playing around with their latest experiment. Most people would consider banning these videos reactionary.

I think you could apply for exceptions like you would for child actors (e.g. whatever law allows them to get around child labor laws) Point is there should be a way to limit public sharing of photos and videos without a child's consent. There should be a good reason, beyond a parent's own narcissism.

> I think you could apply for exceptions like you would for child actors (e.g. whatever law allows them to get around child labor laws)

There is an application in CA for an entertainment work permit, but that's mostly validating age and satisfactory education status (for school age children) and medical clearance (for infants under 1). So, I think the analogy doesn't work and you should work out what kind of application you mean here.

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

#223

Post by tfha »

Pxtl wrote: post #73
anonymousab wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Several videos appeared to be re-uploads by people other than the original uploader. This is very significant. It becomes 1000X more sinister here - it goes from "innocently upload family videos to share" into "steal family videos that are popular with perverts, post them yourself and monetize them". It will be very difficult for YouTube to separate legitimately uploaded family vids that attract perverts from scum…

For one, you could see if there's more than one family bring uploaded. If one YouTube channel has the same 6 children in it across 10 videos, probably okay.

If one channel has a different set of kids every video, maybe not okay.

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

#224

Post by Noumenon72 »

komali2 wrote: post #53
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's not the videos, it's the comments, and the suggestions pushing the commentors to other similar videos with similar comments. Comments like, from "predator133," "@2:33 is what we call came here for," linking to a part of a video where a child is doing the splits or something.

That doesn't sound like something anyone who wanted to watch child porn would post, right? You want to watch your porn in peace, not get the video taken down and your account tracked by Chris Hansen and the FBI. On a private pedophile forum, sure. Not on YouTube.

It sounds more like something someone who wasn't a pedophile would post, because they were trying to get the video taken down or to bait real pedophiles into posting agreement.

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

#225

Post by Noumenon72 »

jaimex2 wrote: post #160
itronitron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube should just disable comments on all videos

I agree. They provide nothing constructive.

Unless you're unaware of whether it is, in fact, 2019. YouTube should just delete every comment with the current year in it.

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

#226

Post by komali2 »

alexis_fr wrote: post #115
komali2 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments on youtube are far far worse than on facebook, imo. Hit up any tow truck channel and you'll see overt, unhindered racism, for hundreds of comments.

It’s just that you don’t agree with it. There is a big chiasm between censored internet (Facebook, newspapers) where everything is polished but only reflects 25% of the population, and free internet (the rest) where you get an actual image of diversity. It’s just that you don’t like this diversity and you want them not to exist, but their points are, if not correct, at least vastly unadressed because the visible soci…

I appreciate that you care deeply about this issue. I hope this means you are open to me challenging your points:

>It’s just that you don’t agree with it.

Correct, I don't agree that it's ok to refer to groups of people as "jobless apes," and I despise the mindset required to dehumanize like that. I find it disgusting. I also find it irrational and dangerous, and I want it to go away. Is this a "just"? I am happy to dismantle any "advantage" of a racist mindset, if you'd like. It simply does not need to exist - the exist of racism is a failure of society. Every member of society, I believe, has a responsibility to make it Go Away. That includes youtube.

> but only reflects 25% of the population

I am surprised to hear you suppose that 75% of the population is, for example, racist. I strongly reject this hypothesis but welcome your evidence.

> an actual image of diversity. It’s just that you don’t like this diversity and you want them not to exist, but their points are, if not correct, at least vastly unadressed because the visible society despises them.

"just," again, implies that my dislike of this "diversity" and my desire for it to not exist, means it should? Racist points should remain unaddressed - they are wrong. They deserve no more attention than someone saying "there is a dragon in my garage, you may not see it but you must worship it with me" - riddled with fallacy and taking no energy to generate, these ideas and concepts must be rejected with as little energy as it took to generate them, or we open ourselves up to "death by bullshit." A DDOS of bullshit.

Society should despise many of these concepts. Racism is stupid, pointless, a waste of energy, and immoral. That someone that is racist gets despised by association is a shame - I wish we could all be Dale Carnegie. Punish the sin not the sinner.

>And that’s 49% of population

I reject the notion that all men are Mens Rights activists - that idea isn't even kosher by Red Pill values, because "cucks" exist in their value system, which obviously aren't men's right's activists. Furthermore, my own experience disagrees with the supposition - I have met thousands of men, and about two men's rights activists. On the internet, I only find them when I hang out in 4chan or the boards made for them on reddit. 49% of the population is "underground?"

The phrase, "men's rights activism" does not draw meaning from the words alone - the definition encompasses more. I posit that equating the censoring of Red Pillers is not equivalent to discriminatory actions towards men in general.

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

#227

Post by dragonwriter »

Guest192392 wrote: post #198
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…

I think the discussion is important, because something needs to be done. It's a scary situation going on. Yes, the videos are kids being themselves, and typically uploaded by the children. However, then these predators show up pretending to be other children, and they talk these kids into doing more explicit and inappropriate things. They ask children to film a video sucking on a lollipop, they ask them to make a vid…

> However, then these predators show up pretending to be other children, and they talk these kids into doing more explicit and inappropriate things.

So instead of trying to ban the videos and restricting user freedom to prevent the videos and deploying automation to recognize them, why don't we ban the predatory behavior and set system rules to prevent and/or direct AI at identifying that.

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

#228

Post by kalleboo »

subpixel wrote: post #147
briandear wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t use YouTube. Photos on Mac and iOS make sharing family videos dead simple. Not sure why anyone uses YouTube to share videos they don’t want to be public.

> Photos on Mac and iOS make sharing family videos dead simple That’s categorically false. Every iCloud user has their own photo library and you cannot create a collaborative one. So all my photos are in mine, all my wife’s are in hers, and we’ve resorted to uploading to a a joint (also paid) Google photos account for sharing with each other and family.

Shared Albums exist and they are collaborative. https://support.apple.com/kb/PH13690?viewlocale=en_GB&locale...

There's a quality downgrade so it's not suitable for sharing archive-quality photos, but for us it's adequately replaced Facebook for sharing photos and videos of our kid, vacations etc

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

#229

Post by komali2 »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #224
komali2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the videos, it's the comments, and the suggestions pushing the commentors to other similar videos with similar comments. Comments like, from "predator133," "@2:33 is what we call came here for," linking to a part of a video where a child is doing the splits or something.

That doesn't sound like something anyone who wanted to watch child porn would post, right? You want to watch your porn in peace, not get the video taken down and your account tracked by Chris Hansen and the FBI. On a private pedophile forum, sure. Not on YouTube. It sounds more like something someone who wasn't a pedophile would post, because they were trying to get the video taken down or to bait real pedophiles int…

Well, we're both working with the same evidence, so, I disagree. I think it's more likely that it's a pedophile, that they're not willing to risk hopping on the dark net, that videos of children on youtube are enough to sexually gratify them without fear of retribution.

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

#230

Post by matz1 »

paavoova wrote: post #216
robbrown451 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> You know what I spend my efforts worrying about? Her getting hit by a car. Drowning. You know, real things. 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. Ye…

There are no objective solutions to this kind of "problem". You think is disturbing, other think its not. Whatever solution you purpose, someone will be happy, other will be unhappy.
Post reply on HN