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

131–140 of 156 posts

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

#131

Post by lotsofpulp »

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.

I was assuming the inappropriate content included videos such as the unboxing or adults playing with toys videos that seem to entrance children. I don't have data for technology increasing number of addicts, but my claim is that people seem to be susceptible to a number of cognitive biases that hinder their long term survival.

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

#132

Post by HALtheWise »

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.

I would normally say that the most reasonable comparison is to the profit obtained from related features or products. For example, the FTC should be able to fine Alphabet up to however much profit YouTube makes serving kids in the US. Unfortunately, it is widely rumored that YouTube makes no profit, and that means they almost certainly don't make much money off of kids. Still, at some point, you have to watch out that the fines don't get so big that it just makes sense for YouTube to ban all content targeting kids, at least in the US, because that would be a disaster for everyone given the amount of educational content there. Google pulled out of the China market because the moral and economic costs of complying with government regulations wasn't worth the value of the market, we don't want them doing the same thing here for specific products.

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

#133

Post by jimktrains2 »

johnisgood wrote: post #86
jimktrains2 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ad blockers don't work well on the YouTube app. I still can't get adaway to block YouTube app adds, not to mention people on iOS or without root.

I am not sure what to reply to this. Do not use the YouTube app, then? Are you saying there are no ad blockers on iOS? I can think of two ways and I am not an iOS user: 1) you can use RSS and open in Safari which has full adblocking support, or 2) you can auto download the videos. No ads in downloaded videos. What do you mean by "without root"? Could you give me a specific example? Out of curiosity, what is the reaso…

I was simply reply to the assertion that an adblocker is a fullproof solution, not making a grand statement.

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

#134

Post by midev »

etse wrote: post #123
midev wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to be a parent and not expect regulatory fines to watch your children. You've identified a problem, you've identified the cause, and now you need to do something about it within your household. You're literally talking about a video you let your child watch, while bemoaning the FCC needing to step in. > The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a jok…

How is demanding fines not being a parent? They are not mutually exclusive. The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of finding a kid who can work around it.

One should come before the other. You should parent before calling for regulations.

> The comment about moms blocking YouTube is a bit ridiculous. Seems hard to believe likelihood of finding one could be higher than the likelihood of finding a kid who can work around it.

It is not hard to block domains at the router, and restrict the devices your child has access to. Of course they might use a friends, or find a way around it. But the OP is literally talking about overhearing the video on the couch and not doing anything about it.

That's why I asked what they tried... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOTyUfOHgas

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

#135

Post by longtom »

etse wrote: post #119
longtom wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

> 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.

No, because those people may have engaged in other unhealthy lifestyles if the technology didn't exist.

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

Yes, I've linked some in a comment below.

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

#136

Post by nomel »

cameronbrown wrote: post #88
dgzl wrote: post #46

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

Define inappropriate. The worst thing I've seen is somebody who swears or makes a fair amount of edgy jokes. I'm guessing you're outside the US since YouTube controls the trending tab pretty closely there.

Trending yes, but related videos for a trending video can get inappropriate pretty quickly, especially with music videos.

Beyond that, if they can type, it’s fairly trivial to find softcore porn, death, gore, and weirdness on YouTube.

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

#137

Post by utopian3 »

HALtheWise wrote: post #132
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.

I would normally say that the most reasonable comparison is to the profit obtained from related features or products. For example, the FTC should be able to fine Alphabet up to however much profit YouTube makes serving kids in the US. Unfortunately, it is widely rumored that YouTube makes no profit, and that means they almost certainly don't make much money off of kids. Still, at some point, you have to watch out tha…

> Google pulled out of the China market because the moral and economic costs of complying with government regulations wasn't worth the value of the market..

That’s not why they left

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

#138

Post by dgzl »

longtom wrote: post #65
dgzl wrote: post #46

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

I think humans are a lot more robust than commonly assumed. Most of us do not break due to their mere experiences as long as their fundamental needs (food, being loved, goals and so on) are fulfilled. Once these needs are not fulfilled they may be more vulnerable though.

I think young humans are not developed enough to understand that the media's high praise of corruptive behavior is not healthy. I think young people are growing up thinking all the outrageous and adult content on the media platforms is not just some outlier entertainment, but rather that's what their future is going to be.

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

#139

Post by dgzl »

cameronbrown wrote: post #88
dgzl wrote: post #46

To be honest, I see quite a lot of inappropriate content on YouTube's tending section pretty often. This can't have a net zero effect on youth.

Define inappropriate. The worst thing I've seen is somebody who swears or makes a fair amount of edgy jokes. I'm guessing you're outside the US since YouTube controls the trending tab pretty closely there.

How about softcore porn in the form of music videos? This is media kids are taking in every day.

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

#140

Post by zapzupnz »

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.

I don't believe for a second that this represents the minority. One might be tempted to conjure reddit-like images of Chads and Karens who park their cars where ever, when ever, and for however long they like, but the majority of people aren't like this.
Post reply on HN