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

141–150 of 316 posts

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

#141

Post by dragonwriter »

freeflight wrote: post #108
14 wrote: post #31

Youtube wants to cater to everyone but to me it is clear Youtube is a risky place for a child. I let my kids use the site but I have no expectations of anything less then we are seeing here and try to keep an eye from behind. But I myself have found these types of wormholes he talked about in the video. Searching for massage techniques and saw a pretty girl so clicked it then next thing I know I am down a worm hole o…

> Youtube wants to cater to everyone but to me it is clear Youtube is a risky place for a child. The Internet, in general, is a "risky" place for a child, always has been and always will be. But trying to "child-proof" this whole thing will just completely destroy what little remains of its original idea. Doesn't YouTube by now have curated categories with specific themes? Imho it shouldn't be that difficult for them…

Why would you assume that semi-soft-core material appeals only to people who can't find actual (presumably hardcore) pornography?

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

#142

Post by brandonjm »

freeflight wrote: post #86
sigmaris wrote: post #71

Instead of hiring enough humans to review the content they make money from, Google's approach to catching this stuff seems to be doing a global search for videos with "CP" in related text and auto-banning the channels: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47278362 and then claiming that they're making use of "artificial intelligence" to moderate the platform.

I'd be really interested in how many humans you'd consider "enough humans" to actually be able to make an impact? Because it's quite easy to underestimate just how much content is constantly uploaded to YouTube, how much of it is watched and reported, on a per second basis [0]. With numbers like that, you could probably fully employ a small nation of people and still wouldn't be able to review and catch everything. T…

Also they will not involve humans because it removes their ability to blame the system. If a human employee fails to correctly flag something (which is likely given the sheer volume of incoming content to review) and it slips through, YouTube could potentially be held liable for its effects (whatever they may be). Whereas if the system misses something it's easier to pass it off as just a bug that needs fixing or an obscure edge case that wasn't handled.

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

#144

Post by srkmno »

If I understand this correctly the videos in question are family videos uploaded and monetized by parents, and the issue is that perverts are commenting on them, right?

Invariably a small percentage of people are going to suck, it's the way of the world, what is YouTube or anyone to do about it? Are they now responsible for everyone who watches a publicly available video?

This brand of hysteria is the product of alarmism, and sensationalism regarding everything social media, it's gotten ridiculous when we blame theses platforms for all of humanity's failings and newspapers are advocating for censorship.

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

#145

Post by hackinthebochs »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #68
hombre_fatal wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't suggested a definition of where to draw the line, it's exactly what I'm asking. Is that video sexual content? And how would you suggest encoding it in a policy change? Obviously, "I'll know it when I see it" doesn't scale.

I don't have an answer. But what I can tell is that video I linked above... I'll give 99% probability easily, that this video was made for purpose, with sexual context in mind, most probably by some adult person, not another kid, and it is not "just kid having fun", and it's not "family video". This is softcore erotica with 12-14 y.o. girl, and it was made to be a softcore erotica. There is literally zero other reaso…

If you don't know anything about ASMR you might think that. But that's pretty standard content in the ASMR-sphere. The only difference is that it's being made by a preteen.

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

#147

Post by subpixel »

briandear wrote: post #113
ceejayoz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That solves the issue from the advertisers' perspective. It doesn't solve the "pedos are looking at my kid" side of things.

Don’t use YouTube. Photos on Mac and iOS make sharing family videos dead simple. Not sure why anyone uses YouTube to share videos they don’t want to be public.

> Photos on Mac and iOS make sharing family videos dead simple

That’s categorically false. Every iCloud user has their own photo library and you cannot create a collaborative one. So all my photos are in mine, all my wife’s are in hers, and we’ve resorted to uploading to a a joint (also paid) Google photos account for sharing with each other and family.

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

#148

Post by robbrown451 »

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.

Well I can see the number of views. They aren't high. The one that got ~700 views was probably because the title said something about "upside down on monkey bars," but she was wearing jeans, so I don't care. I doubt anyone was gratified.

Pretty sure none of the videos I have posted have a billion views.

And a creep in real life can easily follow you home.

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

#149

Post by hackinthebochs »

amagumori wrote: post #64
darawk wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to ban videos of children from the internet because pedophiles might be aroused by them?

i mean, another angle is the parents that are posting videos of their kids online are not asking their kids for consent first, and the kids may be themselves unable to give consent. requiring videos of children to be unlisted seems completely reasonable to me.

Let's be clear here, many if not most of these videos are being posted by the kids themselves. Everyone wants to be the next youtube star. There are enough gymnastics youtube stars that other kids try to emulate them.

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

#150

Post by skissane »

My wife and I have lots of photos and videos of our kids on the Internet. Not on YouTube, but on Facebook and Instagram yes.

I think most of them, only our "friends" can see them. But social media friends includes some random person I sat with once on a plane 5+ years ago and have never spoken to since, and people my wife used to play Farmville with, and someone one of us went to high school with and haven't spoken to in twenty years, and so on.

Is it possible that some of these people who see photos/videos of our kids are getting some sort of creepy pleasure out of it? Probably not, but you never know.

But, if they are, should I care? I mean, if one of our kids walks down the street, and some creep glances at them briefly and gets some sick pleasure out of it, but leaves it all in their head – there is no way we could ever know, and as disturbing as it is to think about, it isn't harming anyone anyway.

Now, if they take it out of their heads, and start acting on it – harassment, stalking, grooming, abduction, etc. – very different story. But, that's pretty unlikely to actually happen. And most random people on the Internet are far away physically, and so little risk of being able to do anything like that, at least in non-virtual forms. The main protection against the virtual forms of those things, is really monitoring of children's Internet usage, and educating them–I doubt the availability of photos/videos makes much difference.

Post reply on HN