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

41–50 of 156 posts

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

#41

Post by gpm »

realusername wrote: post #33
gpm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have to convince creator's to switch , just to use your new platform as well . YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.

That's where the problem is, a lot of popular content creators have contracts with large media groups which specifically prevents them to upload to another platform.

Do the media partners in turn have contracts with youtube requiring that they upload to it exclusively?

If not, maybe even if so, that might not be such a bad thing. It would mean that if you could negotiate a deal with a single media group to upload to your platform as well you get a lot of content. I don't imagine these businesses are any happier with being hostage by youtube than individual creators.

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

#42

Post by input_sh »

gpm wrote: post #29
input_sh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a chicken and egg problem: users won't switch platforms until their favorite creators switch over, and the creators won't switch over if nobody's there to watch their videos.

You don't have to convince creator's to switch , just to use your new platform as well . YouTube doesn't have an exclusive license on the content.

That'd work fine for small channels, but you can bet that the big ones do have exclusivity contracts. Not with YouTube directly, but media groups that tie them to YouTube.

In-video sponsors like Skillshare, NordVPN, Dollar Shave Club or whatever don't contact channels directly. There's someone representing them.

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

#43

Post by input_sh »

gpm wrote: post #41
realusername wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's where the problem is, a lot of popular content creators have contracts with large media groups which specifically prevents them to upload to another platform.

Do the media partners in turn have contracts with youtube requiring that they upload to it exclusively? If not, maybe even if so, that might not be such a bad thing. It would mean that if you could negotiate a deal with a single media group to upload to your platform as well you get a lot of content. I don't imagine these businesses are any happier with being hostage by youtube than individual creators.

Hell, one of them (probably the most interesting one to HN readers) even has its own video platform: https://watchnebula.com

To name some of the creators: CGP Gray, Kurzgesagt, Minute Physics, Real Engineering, Philosophy Tube etc.

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

#45

Post by dmix »

wongarsu wrote: post #30
dmix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A competitor who finds a way to deal with copyright better, has a sane advertising policy that doesn't randomly demonetizes people, with a patreon system built in, and has a modern UI (YouTube has a lot of room for improvement) it could possibly compete with YouTube. A whole lot of major YouTube channels who are constantly attacked by false copyright claims or have to push product placements due to no ads would love…

Sure, just build a video streaming website with good UI, a good recommendation/discovery algorithm, it's own avertising network (that is able to compete with YTs excellent personalized ads while having a more creator-friendly policy), spend more on human review of copyright claims than YT, establish a revenue share system for creators, as well as a system to pay monthly pledges similar to YT channel memberships or pa…

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 because of the old world model it attempted to deliver it with.

Plus none of the things you listed are hard. Technical problems are easy, it's the market and growth that's hard.

I'm personally focused on Reddit, mostly theoretically atm, but YouTube is something I've considered as well.

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

#47

Post by ryanjshaw »

dmix wrote: post #19
14 wrote: post #2

I for one am glad at this though I am sure the fine could have been exponentially larger. The fact that YouTube can go here and say their platform is only intended for 13 year olds and up is a joke. Their are thousands of shows targeted directly at my kids. I can even clearly hear one video my kid likes to watch starts out with saying “look kids” so tell me how that is not directed at kids. I use an adblocker but whe…

Isn't there a YouTube kids version? I'm not a parent so I've never used it and I've been curious since I also see that Netflix had a cordoned off sections for kids too. I'm not sure if these are sufficient content and feature wise? Also is there any parental consent thing going on here as well with how YouTube words it? I remember seeing plenty of adult ads as a kid watching TV at night time watching with my parents.…

There is but it is not free from very disturbing issues (search for 'elsagate').

Also YouTube Kids has no quality controls. It uses more bandwidth, due to our hires tablet display I guess, than any other device in our household. Very annoying when on capped LTE on a trip.

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

#48

Post by warent »

classics2 wrote: post #44

That’s nothing compared to their ad revenue, not even a notable one time loss.

I agree. There are many people who I've seen say "this is just a warning to other companies" or "this is just the beginning" but it seems like that's always the case.

The fact is, the fine needs to be multiples of quarterly revenue. It needs to be so high not to destroy the company, but enough to make it limp and force it to borrow money to make it through. THEN these will be taken seriously. Until then, these aren't fines. These are price tags for unethical, law-breaking behavior, and these companies are more than happy to pay it.

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

#49

Post by techntoke »

dang wrote: post #38
techntoke wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because children have these things called parents, that are allowing unrestricted access to a platform that they failed to read and follow the terms and conditions of. There is also a YouTube kids app, specifically geared towards helping filter child-appropriate content and advertising policies. I'm personally no fan of YouTube myself, as it constantly recommends channels and videos that I have no interest in and tha…

> children have these things called parents Please don't break the site guidelines by being snarky and taking threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Sorry

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

#50

Post by yoz-y »

8note wrote: post #13
pjc50 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those compete directly with user-uploaded content of arbitrary length. Vimeo and Dailymotion are the nearest competitors.

doesn't Facebook do that?

Do people go to Facebook directly to just watch video from their non-friends? Is it even possible? Genuinely asking, I haven’t used FB for quite some time.
Post reply on HN