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

291–300 of 316 posts

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

#291

Post by slow_donkey »

nojvek wrote: post #252
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.

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.

The whole point of YouTube for m it's inception was to share videos with the internet. This isn't some shady hivemind hatching an evil scheme.

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

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

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

You’ve presented no argument as to why it's not alright. Now, this may be a base moral axiom for you, such that no argument is needed, but that's not particularly convincing to anyone who doesn't already take it as a moral axiom.

> 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).

There might be a time when we see anything in any way you can imagine. That's not an argument that we should.

There might be a time

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

#293

Post by eeZah7Ux »

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.

> no one reads anything [...] they will blame you for it.

And I cannot blame them too much. People are constantly bombarded with misleading messages (e.g. ads), clickbait stuff, terrible UIs, indecipherable contracts, countless pop-up notification and warnings, opt-out and other "dark patterns".

(disclaimer: personally, I read contracts and agreements and it's often pointless and frustrating)

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

#294

Post by _coveredInBees »

Loughla wrote: post #85
_coveredInBees wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel sorry for kids these days, thinking about how videos and pictures (and plenty of embarassing ones at that) are plastered all over social media by their parents with them having no ability to ever exercise any control on limiting the sharing of the videos and pictures once they are older and potentially bothered/annoyed about it all. That being said, it's hard to really regulate this. When someone has a baby, t…

>Hopefully my kids will appreciate that we never posted pictures of them publicly on social media (only shared privately within immediate family). At the very least, it's one less thing they'll have to worry about as they grow up. The trick is to live like it's 1980. We have many, many pictures of our child, but only 10-15 on social media (of things like winning sporting events or the like). Everything else is in dig…

Yup. We still print out an annual photobook that we spend time making with all our favorite pics/memories from the year and the kids love going through the picture books every so often. There is something very different in the way they experience a physical picture book vs. viewing the images on a tablet/computer.

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

#295

Post by ahakki »

purple_ducks wrote: post #289
mcny wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

the affluence section

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

#296

Post by jerf »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #79
jerf wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ban kids uploading a video of their innocent pool party because some creeps might enjoy it?" Given everything else YouTube already does, I seriously, no sarcasm, don't see this as a particularly problematic solution. As ceejayoz pointed out, there's some thorny consent issues involved here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19209766 (ceejayoz' point isn't much larger than my summary of it, but I wanted to give cr…

> Given everything else YouTube already does, I seriously, no sarcasm, don't see this as a particularly problematic solution. Isn't this punishing the users more than punishing YouTube? I get how these kind of videos would be banned in a country like Saudi Arabia, but in the USA, or much of Europe? Yes, CP should be disallowed, but kids playing in a pool adequately covered?

"Punishing" is kind of a loaded term though, isn't it? "Not hosting your video for free because of concerns about risk to YouTube" isn't really a "punishment".

As I sort of alluded to already, giving other services an incentive to exist, or incentivizating more self-hosting, I see as a virtue anyhow. YouTube shouldn't be The Video Site On The Internet.

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

#297

Post by odorousrex »

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…

It's self-deprecating, self-referencing and satirical - he is pretending to be a creep complaining about creepy videos as some sort of comment on YouTube and the personalities it enables by himself becoming one of those personalities.

At least that's the way I understand it... Or maybe it's not that deep, and he's just a hypocritical creep. :)

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

#298

Post by stickfigure »

pgrote wrote: post #164
stickfigure wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There seems to be something wrong with this argument. You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right? But then you think they can apply the algorithm more broadly? Wouldn't that just risk many more false positives and irate users?

>You're displeased that their algorithm is too sensitive and flagged your content as a false positive, right? No. As I said, their rules. I have no idea if it is a false positive since I cannot get an answer as to what guideline was violated. I could have violated one of their guidelines. Youtube doesn't owe me anything ... I use their service for free with unlisted videos to share with family. They make no money off…

You point out that there are similar videos in the system that aren't getting flagged, which makes a pretty good argument that the algorithm is random and ineffective.

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

#299

Post by umvi »

alexanderdmitri wrote: post #272
tfha wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That does seem really high. Then again, it's hard to measure because you can't exactly send out a survey asking people to admit to being a pedophile.

It wouldn't surprise me though - perhaps sexual variants just tend happen in that rate window... chemistry doesn't care whether the particular variant is ethical or not.

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

#300

Post by diminoten »

robbrown451 wrote: post #260
diminoten wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Okay cool, how can I get in touch with your ex then and let her know about this conversation?
Post reply on HN