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

311–316 of 316 posts

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

#311

Post by int_19h »

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #283
int_19h wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 restr…

I propose that there should be no limits on what's available or permissible that cannot be objectively defined. You can ban alcohol for people under 21, for example, but not for "people that I know when I see them shouldn't have alcohol". If you want to ban violence, you have to be specific about what this means (e.g. "no blood", "no slaying", "no physical struggle" etc).

If some legislation cannot be so rewritten, it should be thrown out. Yes, that goes for anything with "vulgar" or "indecent" in the title.

Speaking of standards for movie ratings - they aren't law in US, just industry guidelines. So they're subjective, but people have a choice of following them (e.g. because they believe the board that rates stuff has the same subjective opinion of what is "inappropriate" as they do) or not. Similarly, movie makers can, and do, release unrated movies. Since it's all voluntary, there's no problem here.

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

#312

Post by Apocryphon »

tathougies wrote: post #307
Apocryphon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's literally what TV shows like AFV did.

Notice I used the qualifier "mundane." Funny potentially meme videos are one thing, unexceptional videos of kids' talent shows or just doing everyday things should be not be advertised. Ideally they should be unlisted or posted to Facebook or some other social network that isn't broadcast to the entirety of the web.

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

#313

Post by davidgould »

umvi wrote: post #111
robbrown451 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then you also need to make sure you don't take them outside. Especially not to a swimming pool, or let them participate in gymnastics. There could be creeps present, thinking bad thoughts.

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.

> there are, on average, 0 creeps watching your kids at gymnastics meets and pools in real life

I suspect "people spectating at gymnastics meets and pools" is a not a random sample. Some will be relatives or friends of the participants, but who are those others?

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

#314

Post by blue4 »

kelnos wrote: post #88
robbrown451 wrote: post #67

This just seems ridiculous. I post a lot of videos of my daughter to share with my family and friends, and generally don't care who looks at them any more than I care who looks at her (or what they are thinking) when we are in public. I've gotten a couple creepy comments here and there from random people who found them. (the comments weren't overtly sexual though, but I deleted them anyway) Here's an example of a har…

While certainly child predators are an issue, I don't even need to consider this sort of thing from that angle. Why do you need to post publicly rather than marking it as unlisted and sharing the link with people you know and trust? Would you personally like to have a video posted of you in your underwear? Even if that's okay with you, perhaps your daughter will grow up preferring to have a more private life, and to…

> Why do you need to post publicly rather than marking it as unlisted and sharing the link with people you know and trust?

Important point, still kind of weird to me, even in this day and age of Facebook and social media in general, where everyone feels the need to share every intimate detail of their lives with strangers.

---

http://pleaserobme.com

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

#315

Post by kelnos »

robbrown451 wrote: post #119
kelnos wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While certainly child predators are an issue, I don't even need to consider this sort of thing from that angle. Why do you need to post publicly rather than marking it as unlisted and sharing the link with people you know and trust? Would you personally like to have a video posted of you in your underwear? Even if that's okay with you, perhaps your daughter will grow up preferring to have a more private life, and to…

As far as underwear goes, no I wouldn't care if I was under age 3 in the photo. Seeing a kid in a diaper is an everyday public thing. In that case, she was in a diaper rather than a bathing suit because she was still diaper age. I don't see it remotely as something to be embarrassed about. I don't "need" to post publicly but I also have no reason not to. I'm not going to let people having creepy thoughts control my l…

> As far as underwear goes, no I wouldn't care if I was under age 3 in the photo.

Clarification, though: I was talking about you-the-adult, not some hypothetical video of you from when you were 3. Maybe you would be ok with that. That's fine. You're an adult and can decide for yourself what you want to post online about yourself. (I personally do not want videos of my 37-year-old self in my underwear on the internet, but that's just me.)

Anyway, as I initially said, I'm not even talking about creeps here. I, personally, as an adult, would not want photos/videos of me as a child floating around on the internet. It's not a matter of embarrassment or safety, it's just that I don't want my life to be public to that degree.

But hey, you can always argue that I'm an adult, and I didn't grow up with always-on internet connectivity (or, really, much in the way of internet connectivity at all until I was in high school), so maybe my opinion doesn't count, because culture and social expectations are different now.

But... they're not, really, at least not universally so. There are people who are children right now who are uncomfortable with this[0]. The linked article also mentions, for balance's sake, some kids who enjoy having a ton of information about them online. But that's the thing: you can always put more information about yourself online, but once it's there, it's very hard (sometimes impossible) to take it back. Parents who share things about their kids online rob them of the agency to decide for themselves how private they want to be. That's just fact, regardless of what you've decided.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/when-...

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

#316

Post by riffic »

riffic wrote: post #14
justinsaccount wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ban kids Yes.

How about we turn it up a notch and also take a stab at malnourishment and overpopulation? A young healthy child well nursed, is, at a year old, a most delicious nourishing and wholesome food

This was an allusion to A Modest Proposal, you uncultured fools!
Post reply on HN