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

241–250 of 316 posts

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

#241

Post by porpoisely »

jtolds wrote: post #93

I'm surprised that the comments here focus on any specific video and don't focus on the fact that YouTube starts recommending the next similar video. YouTube has convinced me that recommendation systems are garbage in general. Try seeing what YouTube recommends to play after a few plays of searching for something historic like the moon landing. We can't crowd source finding related videos and then shrug like this. Th…

If you don't like the recommends, then don't use it. Youtube's recommend can be great. If you search for C# or any programming video, it provides a great way to find other interesting videos.

Why is that the busybodies always want to ruin something for everyone else because they themselves don't like it?

Also, if you don't like the videos, then don't watch it. What's so difficult about that?

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

#242

Post by dragonwriter »

Guest192392 wrote: post #237
dragonwriter wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

I'm pretty sure the phrase I used was “predatory behavior”, not “comments”, so I'm not sure what your point is.

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

#243

Post by Guest192392 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #242
Guest192392 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Blocking comments only solves the direct contact between predators and children. I'm pretty sure the phrase I used was “predatory behavior”, not “comments”, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Sorry, I assumed you were referring to comments. If not, what predatory behavior do you want them to identify and ban?

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

#244

Post by jshevek »

bduerst wrote: post #211
CyberDildonics wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can hire firefighters, I would rather hire people who know how to build a house that doesn't burn down.

I don't get this analogy. Are you hiring firefighters to build your house? Are the ad agencies the fire?

He's just saying that prevention is better than responding/reacting after the fact.

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

#245

Post by Someone1234 »

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?

It absolutely is fair use. Let's consider:

- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

Which is non-commercial.

- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Which is to none.

There's also a question of if a video containing a bad transfer of a piece of music along with children dancing is "transformative." See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, where Universal Music got destroyed all the way up to SCOTUS for ignoring Fair Usage when taking down a video of a dancing baby.

Your whole argument seems to be based on some fictional contractual agreement between the dance studio and the music's owners. That isn't relevant to the discussion at all, a parent recorded and distributed, not the dance studio themselves for commercial purposes.

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

#246

Post by dredmorbius »

jtolds wrote: post #93

I'm surprised that the comments here focus on any specific video and don't focus on the fact that YouTube starts recommending the next similar video. YouTube has convinced me that recommendation systems are garbage in general. Try seeing what YouTube recommends to play after a few plays of searching for something historic like the moon landing. We can't crowd source finding related videos and then shrug like this. Th…

YouTube recommendations are the best posible advertisement for mps-youtube.

(I'm presently listening to a specifically curated queue of 8+ hours of lectures of an author of recent interest, via Termux on Android, which I can background, unlike YouTube Web or App clients.)

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

#247

Post by Noumenon72 »

komali2 wrote: post #229
Noumenon72 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Someone who's not willing to risk hopping on the dark net is smart. Too smart to assume that most people who see a comment from 'predator133' on YouTube will approve of predators.

There are neo-Nazi parades of people not afraid of being hated, but there are not, like, "I cheat on my taxes" parades. Too much to lose.

And there are a lot of hoaxters, trolls, parodists, and false flaggers out there. Often more of them than the deviants, because the deviants are weird and underground.

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

#248

Post by hackinthebochs »

Yntec wrote: post #236
hackinthebochs wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 peop…

But its not just the link, its also the comments that go along with it. One example was "this is why you're here" with a link to a timestamp in the video. That context is unmistakable. There are certainly less obvious cases though.

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

#249

Post by dbancajas »

Guest192392 wrote: post #237
dragonwriter wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

serious question: are there enough predators to influence the algorithm? what you're describing from the "yoga indicent" sounds like an anecdote?

edit: holy shit, i just watched the video report. YT in serious trouble.

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

#250

Post by robbrown451 »

Noumenon72 wrote: post #234
Waterluvian wrote: post #157

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?"

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…

Militant meh-why-notter. Can I use that? :)

(thanks for your support, btw...)

Post reply on HN