Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 556 posts

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#311

Post by gjs278 »

Mirioron wrote: post #210
Barrin92 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It won’t ever go away, it will just be hidden. deplatforming is an effective strategy to reduce the spread of malicious content for several reasons, in the case of youtube because it reduces the incentive to monetize and spread harmful content. To say that you'd rather be a exposed to pedophilia in youtube comments than to remove them is a little bit like saying you'd like to stay in contact with the marburg virus.

I agree! Since Hacker News could also potentially be such a way to disseminate bad information we should remove all comments here too. See the problem? That's basically what you're justifying.

they already do that. you can be banned for being mean to the crazies but they don't ban you for spreading misleading information about technology

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#312

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

npunt wrote: post #272
busterarm wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't exactly challenge ideas if the challenger ideas need to be approved or in an approved venue. It's not that long ago that the Catholic church had people executed for heresy.

I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. Filtering mechanisms exist in all forums, online and offline. Some suck, like certain sub-communities in youtube. The discussion should be about what filters we employ to best balance the positive value of conversation against the n…

> I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein.

If that "reach" should not be available to "anybody, regardless of content therein", then the logical and unavoidable conclusion there is some person or organization that has to decide what people and content are allowed access. You can hardly dodge the logical implications of your own statement.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#313

Post by hackinthebochs »

claudiawerner wrote: post #307
hackinthebochs wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is unmoving. Child pornography isn't speech nor it is an idea. Images are records of events and the dissemination of such records can be directly harmful. There is no ambiguity about the harm principle to be mined from this example. > In censoring them, aren't we censoring ideas too? Ideas are by definition abstract and so they should be communicable through some other medium.

You've managed to circumvent my entire post and you're still wrong; my point was that ideas are communicated through a medium, and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. You have given no convincing reason to single out child-pornographic images for censorship while allowing others, such as regular pornography. What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography fro…

>and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography.

But censoring one particular medium is not censoring the idea. So your attempt at finding a contradiction doesn't hold water.

>What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography from other pornography, or even art which required harm in its creation?

Consent.

>since it would mean that we can censor whatever ideas we like in any major category

This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK. Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination) that doesn't transfer to other mediums that don't have the same problems.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#314

Post by esturk »

xfitm3 wrote: post #157
jawns wrote: post #9

Chris Ulmer, who runs the popular YouTube channel Special Books for Special Kids, said that comments were removed from his channel despite no evidence of unacceptable comments, and YouTube told him that if he turned comments back on, he risked his channel being deleted. [EDIT: Turns out, this is not actually the case. See child comments.] https://twitter.com/chrisulmer/status/1099366622329036801 "Last night I realize…

I might be in the minority here but I enjoy the low quality youtube comments. Most people dismiss them as cancer but the reality is a lot of people think in patterns that drive these comments. I would rather be in touch with and exposed to this rather than try to pretend it doesn’t exist. It won’t ever go away, it will just be hidden.

And you'll still get that from non-children related videos. No one is taking anything away from those.

Unless I'm mistake, may I ask why you'd be interested in comments specifically for children videos?

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#315

Post by TLAFanBoy »

zaroth wrote: post #12

The fact that Google is ceding the fight against toxic comments on YouTube is actually pretty shocking. In a company that knows more about you than you can possibly imagine, and more about automated sentiment analysis than anyone in the world, they couldn’t algorithmically determine who should be allowed to post on certain subsets of videos, or devise a system they thought was worth deploying to ensure comments meet…

[flagged]

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#316

Post by dwaltrip »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #312
npunt wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. Filtering mechanisms exist in all forums, online and offline. Some suck, like certain sub-communities in youtube. The discussion should be about what filters we employ to best balance the positive value of conversation against the n…

> I didn't say that ideas need to be 'approved'. I challenged the idea that the ability to reach a worldwide audience should be free and available to anybody, regardless of content therein. If that "reach" should not be available to "anybody, regardless of content therein", then the logical and unavoidable conclusion there is some person or organization that has to decide what people and content are allowed access. Y…

Do you have a specific point? Or just picking a nit?

There are vastly different ways in which the flow of communication between people or groups of people can be impacted, and the differences between these ways can be very important. Because of this, sweeping generalizations don't seem very helpful.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#317

Post by zanny »

Mirioron wrote: post #266
zanny wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not even just about individual actor child predators. Its a parents responsibility to protect their child from harm - that used to just mean making sure they don't get hit by a car or burn their hand on the stove, but nowadays it means shielding them from hostile actors looking to exploit them psychologically and modern society is completely inundated in such actors. Disney, Netflix, Google, etc are all in the bu…

They aren't going to be any more damaged than the previous generations. Why? Because none of this is new. This kind of manipulation happened and happens all the time in all spheres of life. How do you think religion spread?

The accessibility and availability of screens to glue childrens faces to is totally novel and modern. There used to only be "saturday morning cartoons" because the singular TV in the house was dedicated to content the entire family of all ages could watch the rest of the day. Even at the height of wanton kids "advertising" tv (shows in the 80s like TMNT / He-man / Transformers that were just 30 minute ads for toys) the design of the product was never to totally subsume the child at all hours in the product.

We are seeing substantially more children coming of age now without any social skills or ability to interact with people because they spent all their time glued to screens. They are highly addictive, conditioned to consume, and emotionally stunted. Zombies by any other name, programmed by smart minds through operant conditioning to crave gambling dopamine releases from insanity like loot boxes.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#318

Post by el_dev_hell »

xfitm3 wrote: post #157
jawns wrote: post #9

Chris Ulmer, who runs the popular YouTube channel Special Books for Special Kids, said that comments were removed from his channel despite no evidence of unacceptable comments, and YouTube told him that if he turned comments back on, he risked his channel being deleted. [EDIT: Turns out, this is not actually the case. See child comments.] https://twitter.com/chrisulmer/status/1099366622329036801 "Last night I realize…

I might be in the minority here but I enjoy the low quality youtube comments. Most people dismiss them as cancer but the reality is a lot of people think in patterns that drive these comments. I would rather be in touch with and exposed to this rather than try to pretend it doesn’t exist. It won’t ever go away, it will just be hidden.

I agree, in most cases.

Hiding the insanity of YouTube comments won't change anything it will just hide it ever so slightly. Like strategies to _hide_ homelessness in cities.

But I strongly disagree when it comes to pedophiles sharing suggestive timestamps in comments and making vile sexual remarks targeted at children. That's where I nope out. That shit shouldn't be allowed in the comments section - even reddit doesn't allow this kind of commentary.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#319

Post by claudiawerner »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #313
claudiawerner wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've managed to circumvent my entire post and you're still wrong; my point was that ideas are communicated through a medium, and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. You have given no convincing reason to single out child-pornographic images for censorship while allowing others, such as regular pornography. What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography fro…

>and they can even be communicated through, for instance, threats and pornography. But censoring one particular medium is not censoring the idea. So your attempt at finding a contradiction doesn't hold water. >What differentiates the free speech content of child pornography from other pornography, or even art which required harm in its creation? Consent. >since it would mean that we can censor whatever ideas we like…

Censoring a medium is an instance of censoring the idea, and if censoring one particular medium is permissible, then any number of media may be therefore censored.

>This doesn't follow from my argument that censoring one particular medium is OK.

It does, since by your own admission, censoring a particular medium does not entail censoring the idea.

>Child porn is a genuine special case (direct harm in its production, lack of consent in dissemination)

So this is what I was getting at - you say it's fine to censor a particular way of conveying an idea due to other harms being associated with that particular way of conveying. In child pornography it's the violation of consent in its production and violation of privacy in its reproduction. Extending this argument from child pornography to regular pornography, some would say there are significant harms involved there too (e.g it conveys the idea that women ought to be subservient to men), and then to hate speech.

The core idea is that speech is not absolute, just like actions aren't absolute. You're free to swing your fist so long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and you're free to say things so long as they don't hurt anyone (or require anyone to be hurt, of course). This means that with a sufficiently convincing empirical dataset, we can outlaw regular pornography and hate speech.

Re: YouTube bans comments on all videos of children

#320

Post by busterarm »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #292
busterarm wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't exactly challenge ideas if the challenger ideas need to be approved or in an approved venue. It's not that long ago that the Catholic church had people executed for heresy.

The context is comments on videos of children.

In the context of that, I'm fine with youtube's rule, but we were already off on a tangent in the meta discussion and that is clearly not the context of this particular discussion.

Go up two levels if you don't believe me.

We actually already have laws here in the US about signing up people under the age of 13 for online services and have since the 90s. They're very lax and not enforced.

A very large measure that YouTube could take is to hide all comments if you aren't signed in and strictly enforce the over 13 rule in the US (or whatever other rules elsewhere). But they don't do that.

Post reply on HN