71–80 of 156 posts
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.
Yeah. I haven’t found any way of using YouTube that I would consider safe for children. The problems are at a fundamental level.
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…
Completely wrong, everything targeted at children (for decades) is regulated. If your kid is watching Sesame Street on PBS and an ad for The Sopranos appears - that does not happen for a reason. Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.
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…
> 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 competitor that grows to the size of YouTube will face all the same pressures from publishers, legislators, advertisers, and malicious actors, and w…
I think everyone would be happy without the revenue sharing.
What we really need is a good video podcast viewer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely wrong, everything targeted at children (for decades) is regulated. If your kid is watching Sesame Street on PBS and an ad for The Sopranos appears - that does not happen for a reason. Uploading cartoon nursery rhymes and having an ad for drug trafficking come up is idiotic.
It very may well be regulated, sure, but what is completely wrong exactly? Parents are responsible for their children! Is this incorrect? We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
> We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. The children enjoy watching the content. Those children don't want unsuitable ads. The parents are happy for their children to watch the content. Those parents don't want unsuitable ads.
All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content.
YouTube needs to be aware that regulation is coming, and they're not going to like what the EU will impose.
Quit posting unsubstantiated comments.
If you're going to comment, please post thoughtfully and follow the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. If you can't do that, please don't post until you can.
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…
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…
But other video providers can make sure that video and the ads placed against that video is suitable for children. I can let a 7 year old sit and watch uk ITV kids content for an hour and I know it'll be fine. I cannot do that for YouTube, because YT ignores the regulatory framework.
That framework is largely voluntary, so sure they don't _have_ to comply with it. But whenever this comes up (especially with taxes) people say "if you don't like non-compliance with voluntary regulation just change the law". And then, when the law is changed (eg, GDPR), people lose their shit and talk about how restrictive the law is.
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 competitor that grows to the size of YouTube will face all the same pressures from publishers, legislators, advertisers, and malicious actors, and w…
Personally only some small fraction of the creators I watch on YouTube monetize their videos and all of them have another source of income in addition to that (paid promotions, merchandice, pattreon, concerts etc.) I think everyone would be happy without the revenue sharing. What we really need is a good video podcast viewer.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It very may well be regulated, sure, but what is completely wrong exactly? Parents are responsible for their children! Is this incorrect? We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes.
We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children. We want a society where parents can give their children gradual access to freedom. > We can go back to how parents blame everyone but themselves when their kid steals their credit card to buy, say, loot boxes. This is a completely different problem. Content is made for children. Those content creators don't want unsuitable ads in the content. Th…
Of course. There was another submission under which the US was called out for having less of that in comparison to Europe. As I said, kids are free to be kids around here in Eastern Europe, there are lots of playgrounds being built for them, they are usually allowed to go to school and back alone, and so on. Kids' freedom is less restricted in the name of safety.
> We don't want a society where parents have to helicopter their children.
I am not sure what exactly you mean by this. What I am trying to say is that if someone's kids buy something with their credit card, then perhaps they should find a solution to that within the household (parenting) instead of asking the Government to step in.
Regarding my example, I only meant to bring up the trend which I observed lately that some parents put the blame on everyone else but themselves, that is, they do not assume parental responsibility.
> All YouTube has to do is give content creators a checkbox: "Is this content aimed at people under 18?", then not place ads for gambling or alcohol or horror movies etc against that content.
Yes, I do agree with not placing ads targeted for adults when the videos are targeted for children. There is a solution to it right now though, namely ad blockers. Parents could install or ask their kids to install, say, uBlock and perhaps even uMatrix. They do not have to wait for the regulations. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally only some small fraction of the creators I watch on YouTube monetize their videos and all of them have another source of income in addition to that (paid promotions, merchandice, pattreon, concerts etc.) I think everyone would be happy without the revenue sharing. What we really need is a good video podcast viewer.
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 professional youtubers don’t seem to trust YouTube’s revenue sharing so why bother with it?