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

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

#251

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

darkpuma wrote: post #128

AnaniasAnanas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both a usability nightmare and a sanity nightmare. The content of the comments there is about as bad as facebook's. To be honest if they removed the ability to comment then nothing of value would be lost.

The opinion people have of youtube comments says a lot about what sort of videos they probably watch. You hear the sentiments echoed by the creators that run different sort of channels too. Some people think youtube comments are complete trash. They usually watch videos of very large channels. Other people think youtube comments are dull but not particularly horrible but rarely insightful. It's common to hear this ab…

God help the woman who tries to do something like your woodworking or firearms channels, especially if she is attractive. Maybe all those commenters are 12 years old, but I doubt it.

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

#252

Post by nojvek » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:15 AM UTC

ipsum2 wrote: post #37

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

> 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.

This. Public videos should t be default. By I assume, this change would bring YouTube a lot less eye balls and hence revenue.

At the end it boils down to the truth that a Corporation is a hive mind, an intelligent machine ruthlessly optimizing for stock price and profits at the expense of sometimes human values.

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

#253

Post by amanaplanacanal » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

vibrato wrote: post #98

At some point, social media companies need to realize that they ARE utilities. They should not attempt to control their content, rather, law enforcement should prosecute illegal usage.

They think that if they don't control their content, their customers and advertisers will leave. They are probably right.

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

#254

Post by subpixel » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:26 AM UTC

kalleboo wrote: post #228

subpixel wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

However a shared album requires one to manually, selectively choose photos to share with people, as opposed to sharing all your photos with your spouse, which Google makes easy.

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

#255

Post by Yntec » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:31 AM UTC

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.

I don't really know what @2:33 is about, but let me take a guess and ask you: would you let actual children see the contents that appear @2:33? And if they did, would they be horrified? If you asked them to describe what was happening on @2:33, would they feel unfomfortable? Or would they give some innocent, mundane description?

This is a great test to see if something is dirty or if it's only dirty in your mind. If you have to create an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by @2:33, and a whole group of them that are searching Youtube comments to find the timestamp for "what they're looking for", you have to wonder if you're not using some huge leap in logic to arrive to conclusions.

Ironically, what this video has shown is that Youtube's system works, as this guy, to make his video, had to go for what seems to be hours of research and after it, he shows the most shocking videos of little girls he was able to find. And there wasn't any nudity, or anything actually implicitly sexual shown. Everything was clean and every timestamp led to family-friendly content.

The "worst" thing I saw was the usage of the water emoji, and I'm like, really? People use the water emoji and suddenly you can be very detailed about their sexual orientation and why they timestamp videos or share them? All what is happening on these completely innocent videos could be explained in many ways, thinking the most likely explanation is "that's a pedophile" means the imaginary pedophile in your mind needs to be toned down.

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

#256

Post by baddox » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

acl2149 wrote: post #34

baddox wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's basically family videos of young girls, the same kind of videos my own sisters would shoot with our dad's camcorder. Your family camcorder videos probably weren't made available for checkout at the public library, filed under "young girls doing gymnastics" in the library's card catalog. If they were, I imagine your family and many members of the public would be creeped out or upset. > but what else do you do h…

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

I know. I just think it’s somrthing YouTube should implement, because people uploading videos of their family probably don’t intend on complete strangers searching for them and thus probably don’t worry about making them public.

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

#257

Post by tfha » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

movedx wrote: post #196

brianpgordon wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My 10-15 year old self would hate you. Most of what I even remember about being that age from my involvement in various online communities. I didn't have many friends at school so I talked to people in games and chat instead. To suggest that my parents should have to be there to "supervise" me is absurd. To some extent they tried to do this, and I resented it and I'm certain that it did no good at all. Not least beca…

> Interacting online isn't any different Except a school is a (mostly) sealed environment. The Internet is not. Anyone can join the conversation online. Not just anyone can walk into a school classroom and pretend to be a teenager to social engineer a young girl. > Cutting them off from the network is like giving them a lobotomy. I didn't say cut them off.

If I didn't have independence on the internet starting the age of 14, I wouldn't be who I am today. I did many things I would not have been comfortable doing under supervision, and many of those contributed greatly to my long term personal and professional growth.

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

#258

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:39 AM UTC

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…

"Privacy is a real thing, and worrying about it isn't mutually exclusive with any other concerns"

Sure, but you need to balance things. Having someone on the internet see a video of her, fully dressed, and getting aroused by it, doesn't exactly compare to any number of real issues. As I said elsewhere, if I actually was concerned about her privacy so much, I'd go to a bit more effort to avoid having her wear a skirt or dress when she is playing. That seems like a good first thing to worry about.

Although not many people see the videos I post of her, she was thrilled when a nearby YouTuber (a 7 year old girl who actually has a significant number of subscribers) found her via this video and we'll hopefully get together for skateboarding together. So there are positives about putting them out there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuIEW9MCmcg

Meanwhile, I've dealt with my daughter's mother for years, as she freaks out over the most ridiculous tiny irrational fears, while nearly killing our daughter due to her recklessness in other ways.

You may think I have an extreme view, but you know who has to be concerned about being seen as having extreme views on things like this? People who are in contested custody situations, where their ex hires aggressive, unethical lawyers willing to grasp at any straw to tear down their parenting in a court of law. All the more so if that person represents themselves rather than having an attorney.

And that's actually me.

I assure you, if posting YouTube videos of my daughter playing at playground was something they thought they could use against me, they would have. But they didn't. And I won about the strongest decision you're going to find, and was awarded primary custody.

So yeah, I reject your premise that I have extreme views on this issue.

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

#259

Post by int_19h » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:42 AM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #125

hombre_fatal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking. Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.

Why must it scale? Laws don't have to scale. That the solution must scale algorithmically is purely for the convenience of the site, and for matters of law and taste nothing but an excuse. Even having different countries with different laws and standards doesn't scale. So what?

Laws have to be objective.

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

#260

Post by robbrown451 » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:44 AM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #209

robbrown451 wrote: post #182

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.

Yup, spent my time in front of judges. Self represented, up against nasty lawyers, solid week long trial. If this was a thing that could be used against me, I assure you, it would have.

It wasn't, and I was awarded primary custody.