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

271–280 of 316 posts

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

#271

Post by komali2 »

Yntec wrote: post #255
komali2 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, I'd love a world where "the predator" links a timestamp to a child doing a yoga pose with the comment "all what we want here" is a fellow child supporting the kid on her yoga moves. I'd love that. I don't believe it's true.

Why do you believe the innocent angle is more likely? Do you know people that make a habit of linking timestamps of children doing yoga poses?

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

#272

Post by alexanderdmitri »

tfha wrote: post #232
umvi wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have a source for this? That seems alarmingly high.

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

#273

Post by krageon »

taneq wrote: post #156
tptacek wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As well they should, because (the hypothetical) you built and deployed something that relied for safety on users doing something you knew they wouldn't do.

So in your world, we should just never give users nice things because we know they're stupid?

The tools you give them should come preconfigured to stop them hurting themselves, because you already know they will if you don't. It's not hard to go from that knowledge to questioning what it means if the defaults are harmful.

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

#274

Post by r3bl »

Mirioron wrote: post #268
movedx wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13?

You need to be over 13 (or above, depending on the country) to create an account. There's no limit on the content itself.

In my opinion, there is no justifiable use case in which videos of children under 13 should be made publicly-available, but YouTube itself disagrees. Case in point: Ryan ToysReview has 18 million subscribers. YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly.

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

#275

Post by dragonwriter »

r3bl wrote: post #274
Mirioron wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13? You need to be over 13 (or above, depending on the country) to create an account. There's no limit on the content itself. In my opinion, there is no justifiable use case in which videos of children under 13 should be made publicly-available, but YouTube itself disagrees. Case in point: Ryan ToysReview has 18 million subscribers. YouTu…

> YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly.

Movies and TV shows starting children are not unheard of as commercial endeavors. I'm not sure why with YouTube as a viable monetizable video platform, parent-driven productions on that platform are fundamentally any worse of an idea.

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

#276

Post by int_19h »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #266
int_19h wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

That's exactly why those are all examples of bad laws.

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

#277

Post by r3bl »

dragonwriter wrote: post #275
r3bl wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't YouTube require you to be at least 13? You need to be over 13 (or above, depending on the country) to create an account. There's no limit on the content itself. In my opinion, there is no justifiable use case in which videos of children under 13 should be made publicly-available, but YouTube itself disagrees. Case in point: Ryan ToysReview has 18 million subscribers. YouTu…

> YouTube thinks it's okay because the videos are uploaded and edited by his parents, while I think it's absurd that anyone makes an income based on sharing videos of their children publicly. Movies and TV shows starting children are not unheard of as commercial endeavors. I'm not sure why with YouTube as a viable monetizable video platform, parent-driven productions on that platform are fundamentally any worse of an…

Yes, movies and TV shows with children under 13 are widely-accepted, but being widely-accepted doesn't mean it's morally alright.

There might be a time in which we reject such content just as we did with prior widely-accepted behavior that was immoral (like homophobia and racism). Future generations might look down on us because of child celebrities (among other things), and I sincerely hope they do.

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

#278

Post by freeflight »

brandonjm wrote: post #142
freeflight wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be really interested in how many humans you'd consider "enough humans" to actually be able to make an impact? Because it's quite easy to underestimate just how much content is constantly uploaded to YouTube, how much of it is watched and reported, on a per second basis [0]. With numbers like that, you could probably fully employ a small nation of people and still wouldn't be able to review and catch everything. T…

Also they will not involve humans because it removes their ability to blame the system. If a human employee fails to correctly flag something (which is likely given the sheer volume of incoming content to review) and it slips through, YouTube could potentially be held liable for its effects (whatever they may be). Whereas if the system misses something it's easier to pass it off as just a bug that needs fixing or an…

I doubt that plays any actual role because as long as it's properly outsourced nobody can claim it was one of their employees who censored something. Which is exactly what happens in the Philippines [0]:

> There are two ways the content is forwarded to the Philippines. The first is a pre-filter, an algorithm, a machine that can analyze the shape of, say, a sexual organ, or the color of blood or certain skin color. So whenever the pre-filter is analyzing and it picks up on something that is inappropriate, the machine will send that content to the Philippines and the content moderators will double check if the machine was right. The second route is when the user flags the content as being inappropriate.

Afaik Facebook, Twitter, and Google all participate in this kind of "moderation outsourcing" but the only way this is even possible is if they have AI/ML pre-select content for moderation.

[0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ywe7gb/the-companies-clea...

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

#279

Post by GoblinSlayer »

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.

It's strange to assume that people think youtube is not a video sharing service.

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

#280

Post by GoblinSlayer »

eropple wrote: post #140
pests wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the problem is the publishers. They know what they are uploading and want it to be public. You are taking the analogy too far.

I don't think you can safely assert that people know that they "want it to be public". The last decade or so has demonstrated pretty adequately that people's brains have a lot of trouble with what "public-to-the-internet" means.

Sharing information with broad public is the whole point of social networks. People might not want all consequences, but they want some consequences.
Post reply on HN