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

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

#261

Post by int_19h » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 3:47 AM UTC

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…

I mostly use YouTube for music, and I find that their recommendation system is pretty good at giving me new and interesting releases and bands to watch.

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

#262

Post by darkpuma » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:04 AM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #251

darkpuma wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure; to be honest most the women I'm subscribed to are in the sub-100k range (I think all are sub-200k.) I think those comment sections are mature and constructive more often than not. Within that range, I still notice a general trend of comments being better when channels are smaller. The curve might be shifted, but I think the trend line probably has the same shape.

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

#263

Post by Yntec » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:07 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #248

Yntec wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please search for my reply on the "this is why you're here" case on this page for more info. Basically, I claim that to reach such conclusions you need an imaginary pedophile in your mind that gets aroused by the material (but not the entire thing, only the timestamp). Then, and only then, this product of fiction makes that context unmistakable.

In reality, I could have in my mind someone that gets aroused by... maraccas (I don't know, it's the most mundane thing I could think of). There's a maraccas video, and there's a comment with a timestamp that says "this is why you're here", so in my mind, there's this group of people that get aroused by maraccas and this comment is for them. The intent and context is clear. All this fabrication is not less real that yours.

Chances are there's a guy out there that actually matches the pedophile in your mind, however, they're not wasting their time clicking timestamps on youtube. If you research porn, people get adapted and need worse and worse things to "get on". The actual pedophile stopped being impressed by such timestamps content long time ago.

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

#264

Post by movedx » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:40 AM UTC

porpoisely wrote: post #238

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…

> 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

What a horrible thing to say to another person.

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

#265

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:41 AM UTC

subpixel wrote: post #254

kalleboo wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thought the context was in contrast to sharing as unlisted videos on YouTube (the comment you were replying to)

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

#266

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 4:42 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #259

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yet for matters of taste, public decency, movie censorship, obscenity etc laws necessarily depend on "I'll know it when I see it" to some extent. Or you end up with absurd lists of approved and banned words, poses, bits, and "you may only reveal upto 5" above...". Objective but useless. In Florida public nudity is legal unless "vulgar or indecent". Objective how?

Then we inject judges and juries into the process to make them even more subjective.

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

#267

Post by bschwindHN » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 6:14 AM UTC

yesenadam wrote: post #81

pedrocx486 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worth mentioning PayMoneyWubby and his quest to find and show weird sh*t. It's plain crazy what YouTube hosts and some people barely know about.

I watched a bit of one of his videos after it was linked to on here. So creepy! I can't imagine who watches and enjoys all his stuff. He was much creepier and more disturbing than any of the videos he played. Do he and his viewers frame it as investigation, news, valuable service to the community, or something? Just seemed creepy and exploitative (He makes money from showing videos and ranting about no-one should see…

> I can't imagine who watches and enjoys all his stuff

I do. It's an act, and it's mostly just for entertainment and "look at this weird series of videos I found". On top of that, his entire channel has a running "inside joke" of him being a creep, and his audience often shits on him as part of this joke. It's all very self deprecating, but at this point I feel like I'm explaining a joke so I'll stop here.

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

#268

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 6:39 AM UTC

movedx wrote: post #106

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…

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 wouldn't let them run free on a highway and the Internet is just as dangerous but in different ways.

Kids here roam across the city unsupervised by age 7-8. This includes highways. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13?

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

#269

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 6:45 AM UTC

14 wrote: post #31

Youtube wants to cater to everyone but to me it is clear Youtube is a risky place for a child. I let my kids use the site but I have no expectations of anything less then we are seeing here and try to keep an eye from behind. But I myself have found these types of wormholes he talked about in the video. Searching for massage techniques and saw a pretty girl so clicked it then next thing I know I am down a worm hole o…

Didn't you yourself grow up in such a "hostile" embossment l environment though? I saw all kinds of crazy things online as a kid. It taught me what the real world can be like, but I still had the safety of being able to turn it off and walking away. I think if my parents had supervised me at the time I would've been poorer for it. For example, shock sites like goatse taught me to be suspicious of what links I click on. This eventually ended up with me learning about phishing.

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

#270

Post by Mirioron » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 6:47 AM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #96

komali2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get is why the fringe community even exists - is there that large of a market of people with porn websites blocked, but youtube not blocked?

People at work? Other than that, honestly, the only population I can come up with who would be watching these on youtube instead of an actual porn site would be kids.

What would stop kids from going to a porn site anyway? The question whether you're 18+?