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

YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#111

Post by krj »

notyourday wrote: post #103
vonmoltke wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.

Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.

That doesn’t really work for a company like google with a largely blameless culture.

The only way of really judging is through repeat offences which is difficult in a case like this where the judgement was that Google didn’t do enough. That line of “enough” is going to be redefined a lot as the web develops (as it should be).

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#112

Post by vkou »

Eli_P wrote: post #62
dmix wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a perfect project for a successful entrepreneur who wants to solve a hard problem just like the Duckduckgo founder. This is the type of hard problem I'm getting more and more interested in. Someone has to bring the future open and privacy oriented Web about some day. The current model is broken and the early Internet showed us what is possible. Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised largely b…

> Web 2.0 brought none of the democratization it promised It introduced formula "If you're not paying for a product, you are the product", while in old world model delivery of value is more about givers/takers ratio.

Web 2.0 didn't invwnt anything. Plenty of pre-web services expect you to pay them, and also sell you. Cable TV, for instance.

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#113

Post by notyourday »

true_religion wrote: post #110
notyourday wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.

It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.

Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web.

Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#114

Post by vkou »

swiley wrote: post #79
vkou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't expecting YouTube to pay you, the list of problems that content creators has with YouTube shrinks dramatically. The remaining problems are largely due to copyright enforcement and abuse... Which don't just magically go away, just because you're not doing revenue sharing.

Most of the people I watch have complained about copyright strikes and having their channels completely deleted without explanation (extractions and ire is an example of that.) More than their fear of demonization (I’ve only seen one complain about that.) Most professional youtubers don’t seem to trust YouTube’s revenue sharing so why bother with it?

Any YouTube competitor will immediately be filled with stolen content, porn, and original content that violates some copyright or other.

Unless that competitor adopts an extremely pro-content-owner stance (which would put them diametrically opposed to their content creators, and render this entire experiment moot), they are going to get sued out of existence.

Why do you think YouTube's copyright systems work the way they do? YouTube's incentives are aligned with content creators - or, they would be, if that pesky lawsuit thing wasn't a constant threat.

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#115

Post by b_tterc_p »

thathndude wrote: post #96

This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.

Compared to just YouTube’s annual income it’s not trivial

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#116

Post by notyourday »

krj wrote: post #111
notyourday wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proper comparison is the reaction of a CEO - if the CEO responds by firing the upper management->product management responsible for the part that caused the fine then the fine got a point across.

That doesn’t really work for a company like google with a largely blameless culture. The only way of really judging is through repeat offences which is difficult in a case like this where the judgement was that Google didn’t do enough. That line of “enough” is going to be redefined a lot as the web develops (as it should be).

> That doesn’t really work for a company like google with a largely blameless culture.

That's only the case because the cost of mistakes are insignificant. Should the mistakes start costing them 5% of revenue you can bet a farm that the person would be fired.

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#117

Post by namewasmypw »

dang wrote: post #34
namewasmypw wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

YouTube is a video hosting platform. It targets whatever the people who upload videos target. Stop clutching your pearls and start being responsible for yourself. The "please think of the children" rhetoric has the effect of ruining it for the rest of us, and it's especially frustrating when the subtext is "because I'm not willing to think of the children myself." If you want a website you can let your kid use with u…

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN?

Can you highlight which part of my post was a personal attack?

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#118

Post by leetcrew »

vonmoltke wrote: post #97
thathndude wrote: post #96

This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. But on top of that, it’s $200m into the black hole that is our dysfunctional and bloated federal government. How do The Impacted children whose privacy was violated actually benefit. It’s all ridiculous.

> This whole thing feels like Monopoly money. First, it’s $200m to a company valued at more than $800B. > Imagine you had 100k in the bank. That would be like a $25 late payment fee. No, it isn't. A company's valuation is not money in the bank. The proper comparison is to profit.

some might argue the proper comparison is to the severity and scale of the offense itself.

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#119

Post by etse »

longtom wrote: post #109
lotsofpulp wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the opposite. Based on how people (and myself) behave, humans love to prioritize short term dopamine hits with long term costs. Whether it be children addicted to YouTube, people addicted to sugar and inactivity (see obesity), refreshing Twitter/Facebook/Reddit/instagram/Hacker News for new bits of information, etc. We’re even willing to trash the planet if it gives us the satisfaction of living in single fami…

The points you are raising (addiction) seem to be somewhat unrelated to what was being discussed (inappropriate content). Of course addictions are bad, but do you have any data supporting your claim that technology has increased the number of addicts? People vulnerable to be drawn to short-term dopamine hits have always existed, whether to food, gambling, or actual drugs.

There are many negative responses to inappropriate content, and with regards to the subtopic of "breaking", addiction is one. Addiction can exacerbate other responses such as depression or anxiety, but I wouldn't rule it out as a response.

As for increased number of addicts, I think the fact that there are technology addicts where there didn't used to be (before tech), should be a sufficient logical claim.

Speaking of which, do you have data on your specific claim on the resilience of human psychology against negative tech/media experiences?

Re: YouTube Said to Be Fined Up to $200M for Children’s Privacy Violations

#120

Post by leetcrew »

notyourday wrote: post #113
true_religion wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s okay for a fine to be insignificant. Parking tickets are insignificant fines too, but in aggregate act to control parking behavior. What’s needed is better enforcement, not more stringent fines.

Not at all. Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business. Get a ticket, pay it on the web. Now if the car is towed that becomes a problem because just pulling out a credit card does not fix it.

> Those who have cars and can afford the fine consider parking fines to be a cost of doing business.

I don't. if the fine is $50 and it costs $5 to park, I will pay unless I suspect enforcement is so lax that I have a >90% chance of getting away with it.

Post reply on HN