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

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

#231

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:43 AM UTC

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…

> Several videos appeared to be re-uploads by people other than the original uploader.

Preventing reuploads of videos that aren't explicitly flagged as eligible for that ought to be a trivial application of tools they already have for copyright enforcement, so that aspect of the problem should be trivial to solve.

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

#232

Post by tfha » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:44 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #111

robbrown451 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then you also need to make sure you don't take them outside. Especially not to a swimming pool, or let them participate in gymnastics. There could be creeps present, thinking bad thoughts.

Internet brings this to a massive, billion+ sized audience, though. Say the rate of pedophilia is 1 in a million (I just made that number up). That means there are, on average, 0 creeps watching your kids at gymnastics meets and pools in real life. However, upload as a public video to youtube, and like flies to honey, hundreds of creeps will gravitate toward the video.

The actual rate is somewhere between 2 and 5 in 100. It's quite high, estimated to be more than 10 million Americans.

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

#233

Post by Waterluvian » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #230

paavoova wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, kind of. One could argue that you can't un ring a bell. Your child can always publish all their childhood stuff if they decide to later on.

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

#234

Post by Noumenon72 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:52 AM UTC

Waterluvian wrote: post #157

robbrown451 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as underwear goes, no I wouldn't care if I was under age 3 in the photo. Seeing a kid in a diaper is an everyday public thing. In that case, she was in a diaper rather than a bathing suit because she was still diaper age. I don't see it remotely as something to be embarrassed about. I don't "need" to post publicly but I also have no reason not to. I'm not going to let people having creepy thoughts control my l…

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?"

It's more like having considered it, I have no idea why they would care. A picture of me as a kid is essentially a picture of some other person who is five years old. When I see a picture of some five-year-old kid I don't think "Wow, they might feel terrible if they knew I could see this."

Maybe the sleepy baby girl from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTCQpjUrCe8&index=147&list=L... will grow up to be really shy and feel that wasn't her best angle. That strikes me as a personal hangup, not some constitutional right we should all be protecting her from.

It's funny how heated I can get about the notion "there are people whose reaction _isn't_ 'meh, why not?' What's wrong with them?" I'm like a militant meh-why-notter.

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

#235

Post by porpoisely » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

Are they going to pull ads from the Oscars which celebrate an actual child rapist like Roman Polanski?

Also, Nestle peddles sugary drinks to children and Disney peddles toxic movies to children. Since when does either company care about children?

I guess this is a win-win for children. Youtube cracks down on pedophiles and Nestle/Disney stops peddling their toxic product to children.

Edit: Also, Nestle and Disney have children in their ads. Are they going to stop exploiting children and using their ads to lure pedophiles?

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

#236

Post by Yntec » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #175

Yntec wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 becau…

It's about context. The context establishes the intent.

My problem has been with people assuming a context, and an intent. I keep repeating myself, but a comment on a cat playing with yarn ball video linking to another cat playing with yarn ball video doesn't seem different to me than comment on a girl eating lollipop video linking to another girl eating a lollipop video.

These videos exist, people like to watch them, but I don't see people assuming the intent is for people that have some cat with yarnball fetish to share it with others that do, as the context. Nor were the children eating the lollipops intending for anything else than having fun. There's nothing wrong with either, other that people assuming why people upload videos, watch them, timestamp them, or share them.

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

#237

Post by Guest192392 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 2:05 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #227

Guest192392 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blocking comments only solves the direct contact between predators and children.

As I said, some of these children will make 50 videos with no viewers, but then they create a gymnastics or yoga video that goes viral with predators.

Even if the comments are disabled, these children realize what subject matter grows their subscribers and view count the fastest, so they keep producing more of those videos. Then another kid sees their channel, and notices their yoga video got one million views, so now they try making yoga videos to replicate it. To their surprise, they also gain traction, and the cycle continues.

So, even without a single comment, you still end up with thousands of children making tutorials on how to do the splits, while they cannot begin to comprehend what is taking place and how they're being exploited.

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

#238

Post by porpoisely » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 2:06 AM UTC

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…

You can't be serious. Internet = Highway? Then most of us would be dead. Do you realize that most of us have been on the internet "unsupervised" much younger than 16? Your kid has a far greater chance of running into a pedo at school or getting on their way to school than on the internet.

I hope people like you don't have kids because I can't imagine the type of stunted and poorly adjusted children you'd raise. Sure warn the kids of the dangers of the internet, but my god who the hell equates children on the internet with children on the highway.

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

#239

Post by jasonjayr » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 2:09 AM UTC

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?

Just to take this a little step further

1) Purpose: to illustrate the efforts of my young children in a non-professional context, not to showcase the audio portion of the recording.

2) Nature: audio + video, with explicit permission to record from the show executive/directors (it was a rehearsal, professionals recorded the actual show) and focus on the visual and physical nature of the unique performance

3) amount: abridged songs, amateurishly cut and remixed

4) effect on potential market: There is no way this is a substitute for any of the original copyrighted audio, and I communicate this intent to youtube by requesting it remain unlisted.

It probably does pass the four factor fair use test, but fighting with the youtube contentid machine is futile, and their system doesn't care about fair use.

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

#240

Post by landryraccoon » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #113

ceejayoz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That solves the issue from the advertisers' perspective. It doesn't solve the "pedos are looking at my kid" side of things.

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.

Mac and iOS are prohibitively expensive for a large fraction of users.