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

301–310 of 316 posts

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

#301

Post by ConcernedCoder »

dragonwriter wrote: post #227
Guest192392 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the discussion is important, because something needs to be done. It's a scary situation going on. Yes, the videos are kids being themselves, and typically uploaded by the children. However, then these predators show up pretending to be other children, and they talk these kids into doing more explicit and inappropriate things. They ask children to film a video sucking on a lollipop, they ask them to make a vid…

> However, then these predators show up pretending to be other children, and they talk these kids into doing more explicit and inappropriate things. So instead of trying to ban the videos and restricting user freedom to prevent the videos and deploying automation to recognize them, why don't we ban the predatory behavior and set system rules to prevent and/or direct AI at identifying that.

I'll tell you why, and it's going to be unpopular: Money. Millions of views === money, no matter WHAT or WHY it's being viewed ( remember that many of these videos are monetized ). Do you seriously think Google encourages their developers to develop systems which will reduce viewing?... The only way I see this happening, is under duress, i.e. profits suffer because of bad publicity, or similar social pressure.

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

#302

Post by rchaud »

Apocryphon wrote: post #13
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…

Monetizing mundane home videos with ads is a creepy and bizarre concept to begin with.

Child paegeantry is a multi-million dollar business, and has been for decades.

Everyone is part of the problem, starting from the parents who push their kids into the public spotlight, to the local media that provides coverage of this stuff, encouraging other fame-seeking parents to try to get in on it.

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

#303

Post by seanmcdirmid »

jerf wrote: post #296
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It really is, if you could post videos for free before, but now some people in parliament have made it so you can’t anymore.

Other services may or may not fill the huge created gap, but what’s to say they won’t be subject to the same regulations as YouTube? Anyways, the politicians would probably take a huge fall if they did this, voters don’t often buy “its for your own good” arguments.

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

#304

Post by tinus_hn »

anonymousab wrote: post #62
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…

Several videos appeared to be re-uploads by people other than the original uploader. I don't think there's an ideal solution. But they'd need some mix of detecting videos that would be prone to these kinds of comments, then subjecting the comments on those videos to higher scrutiny, such as stricter automatic detection/deletion/*(EDIT - Shadowbanning or hiding the comment as a "first pass" seems good) or even manual…

YouTube doesn’t have a hard time blocking feature films.

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

#305

Post by robbrown451 »

diminoten wrote: post #300
robbrown451 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not gonna post it here, but contact me rjbrown at gmail and I'll give you her email and her lawyer's email. Knock yourself out.

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

#306

Post by tathougies »

baddox wrote: post #21
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…

> 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…

> Require (or maybe automatically force, if implemented well) those videos to be set to Visiblity: Unlisted. I don't think anyone would be upset with sharing these links with family.

But, I mean, this takes away the use case of Youtube as a replacement for America's funniest home videos.

Not that that's a necessary thing for societty, but it is something to think about. The chances that some creep found AFV stimulating is non-zero and advertisers paid that show to have their ads. The only difference here is the openness of the comments, whereas those AFV creeps probably had to communicate in secret.

The whole thing is creepy and awful, but I'm not sure what the best solution is. Perhaps banning comments on those videos.

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

#307

Post by tathougies »

Apocryphon wrote: post #13
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…

Monetizing mundane home videos with ads is a creepy and bizarre concept to begin with.

It's literally what TV shows like AFV did.

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

#308

Post by tathougies »

dopamean wrote: post #120
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…

I have looked into this before and one thing I noticed is that the videos with the creepiest comments tend to be reposts. The videos that actually belong to the kids and families who posted them often have their comments disabled. Perhaps YouTube could do more to delete the reposted videos attracting so much perverted attention.

I think this is a really good idea!

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

#309

Post by ataturk »

jaimex2 wrote: post #160
itronitron wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube should just disable comments on all videos

I agree. They provide nothing constructive.

I don't know, there's fewer and fewer places online where I can speak my mind. HN limits me to two posts every 4 hours. These forums were supposed to be a marketplace of ideas, not some echo chamber or one-way communication. What kind of technological terror are we building?

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

#310

Post by diminoten »

robbrown451 wrote: post #305
diminoten wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not gonna post it here, but contact me rjbrown at gmail and I'll give you her email and her lawyer's email. Knock yourself out.

It's weird how far you're okay with going here, honestly this makes me concerned there's an issue more than your original comment.

All I said was "be careful" and now you're giving me your ex's lawyer's contact info. What a weird escalation!

This can only go badly for you, I hope you realize...

Post reply on HN