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

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

#281

Post by majewsky » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #279

ipsum2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What people see and viscerally understand is that they 1) upload a video and 2) get a link that they can share with others. Up to this point, it's the same as e.g. Dropbox.

What's not immediately clear is that the video (and channel) now shows up in search results. You won't be aware of that unless you either have a clear mental model of the platform, or try to search for the video title yourself (which implies a certain sort of mental model to be present already).

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

#282

Post by majewsky » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 9:32 AM UTC

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #280

eropple wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the point of most social networks to most people is sharing information with people close to you. To witness, Facebook being more popular than Twitter.

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

#283

Post by NeedMoreTea » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 10:34 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #276

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So how would you propose legislating them? Or are you suggesting that there should be no limit at all on what is available or permissible, or of age? Case law and precedent generally makes it clear enough, and adapts to changing expectations without needing to be rewritten. It may adapt slower than many would like. Doesn't make the laws bad.

Every country has some limits, and standards for movie ratings and age restrictions etc.

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

#284

Post by pas » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 11:23 AM UTC

majewsky wrote: post #281

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What people see and viscerally understand is that they 1) upload a video and 2) get a link that they can share with others. Up to this point, it's the same as e.g. Dropbox. What's not immediately clear is that the video (and channel) now shows up in search results. You won't be aware of that unless you either have a clear mental model of the platform, or try to search for the video title yourself (which implies a cer…

Upon opening YouTube the visitor is faced with videos published by others. Upon uploading there's one input dropdown right in front and center of the user, by default saying Public.

Sure, people only skim and headline-read articles, but because most articles are shit. That doesn't mean people don't ponder at least a bit when faced with a YT upload page. (And the upload through mobile app is probably more common for non-pro [first time, casual, accidental(!?)] youtubers, there the privacy: public field is pretty visible, legible and explicit.

They can mean anything in people's mind, public is that yeah anyone I send the link can see it, but that's not exactly YT's fault, that people don't make the connection, and somehow live in a fantasy world.

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

#285

Post by tsukikage » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 11:57 AM UTC

jjjensen90 wrote: post #94

throwaway-1283 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I'm not a fan of "big govt" in many cases, I hope there is legislation that prohibits parents from sharing photos, videos, etc. of their kids publicly (e.g. a public IG account, a public YT channel) without consent (e.g. meaning the child would have to be of an age where they can even legally give consent). Children have the right to privacy, and it is crazy how many parents do not think twice before shari…

Many governments have made clear that children are unable to consent on their own to many things (the "Age of Consent" itself comes to mind), and before the age at which they are able to consent, their parents act as a steward of their consent. It does bring up an interesting line of thought though, which is that if we legislated that children (once adults) can consent to the release of their likeness/recordings of t…

We have not reached consensus on the subject of whether bad images of children are bad because the child cannot have consented to the production/spreading of the image, or simply bad inherently in and of themselves - even within most jurisdictions, never mind across them; however, consensus is currently swaying towards the latter - more and more jurisdictions are leaning towards outlawing e.g. drawings of imaginary children.

In practice no politician will want to be on record as the cause of child safety ratchets being relaxed; and so there is no realistic path from the current environment to one in which a person may become free to act as they see fit with previously problematic images of themselves on reaching majority - the trend is towards such images being seen as problematic purely based on content, regardless of context.

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

#286

Post by Sendotsh » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 12:14 PM UTC

lancesells wrote: post #74

Sendotsh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think it might be technical naivety? Eg families know that you can share videos on YouTube, so they want to share their family videos to other friends and family, and don't understand permission settings and other such intricacies. Like most people here likely do, I run tech support for my entire extended family, and a very very common theme is trying to share photos/video with family and friends. Apple lo…

I've never uploaded a Youtube video but wouldn't the parents or the kids see these comments? Don't you specifically have to turn on monetization?

Comments are on by default, and when you upload a video it gives you a "share this URL" thing after, so there's a good chance the families never actually notice the comments. If they're watching on mobile too, then the comments aren't obvious unless you scroll down below the video.

I know people in my family that didn't even know YouTube had comments. They watch YouTube on a smart TV and just use the built in search tool, and all videos play fullscreen. This doesn't fit with the above family sharing thing but it shows how little lots of people understand YouTube in general.

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

#287

Post by GoblinSlayer » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 12:28 PM UTC

r3bl wrote: post #277

dragonwriter wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You want to destroy Leon, Star Wars and Aliens?

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

#288

Post by tsukikage » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 12:38 PM UTC

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.

Comments are the only visible indication of the predatory behaviour, therefore they are the only input any moderation process can use.

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

#289

Post by purple_ducks » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 12:49 PM UTC

mcny wrote: post #206

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…

> I believe YouTube need to implement a system of age verification for content creators. 16+ minimum if you ask me. If the parents do the uploading, whelp, you found your issue (if any arise) I strongly oppose this nonsense. Should I have insert my "age verification identifier" or "drink from the verification can" every time I want to do something on the Internet to prove I am of legal age? If you can't control your…

> If you can't control your kids, you shouldn't have kids.

Where on Amazon can I buy whatever bubble you were raised in?

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

#290

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Feb 21, 2019, 1:15 PM UTC

tsukikage wrote: post #288

dragonwriter wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Comments are the only visible indication of the predatory behaviour, therefore they are the only input any moderation process can use.

> Comments are the only visible indication of the predatory behaviour

Strange, because the post bugging the limitation of blocking contents identified other visible manifestations of predatory behavior.

Admittedly, they may be ones that are difficult to distinguish in a single act from acceptable behavior, but there is no reason an automatic detection system needs to consider each action independently in isolation.