Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

91–100 of 156 posts

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

#91
post #48

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…

Force them to borrow money? How big a fine we talking in your authoritarian world? How many people's jobs is it worth losing?

No. It does not need to be so damn high.

YouTube is aware of the warning, and yes it likely deserves another (order of magnitude larger) fine if they do nothing. But arbitrary fines right out of the gate just hurt everyone.

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

#92
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We want a society where parents can give their children gradual access to freedom. 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 res…

It sounds like you're basically saying this: "Parents, stop complaining. Either move to a country that's safe like here in Eastern Europe where you don't have to helicopter your children in the name of safety, OR act on your parental responsibility to shelter your kids from the bad things in the world BUT don't discuss with anyone how society is broken or how it could be better." I think the mistake you're making is…

Then it seems like you misunderstood my points, or I failed to get them across adequately. Your children are your responsibility. If they take your credit card (and you know that it does not require any code to enter on the online bank interface to authorize/allow a purchase) and use it to buy whatever, then indeed you are at fault here, not the store. Do you need the Government to do the parenting for you? As it is, kids are not even supposed to have credit cards, and most websites have it in their ToS that if you are under X, you cannot make a purchase, and so forth. What more do you want? Camera identification each time prior to making a purchase? What about anything else, if your children swallows, say, your ring, should we blame whoever made the ring, or whoever sold it to you, everyone but the parent? Should we ban rings (at the expense of everyone else) because some parents are not capable of parenting? In my experience, this is what most people seem to be in favor of, "ruining things" for everyone because of some other people who are neglectful or reckless or whatever. This is what I am against. Feel free to make the world a safer place for children, but not at the expense of everyone else because a parent failed to do their duty. We should hold the parents responsible, and thankfully some do.

I am not telling them to not complain. They can complain freely, just as I am allowed to point out that no amount of regulations (sometimes at the expense of other people) will replace parenting. I, for one, would totally be against camera identification prior each purchase because parents cannot keep their credit card away from their children. They are also free to complain about issues that can be easily resolved were they to care enough and put some effort into it.

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

#93
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is, however, important to take note of how this robustness varies with age, just what proportion of people "most" counts as, and whether the most absolute category of humans "breaking" is most appropriate when we take into account the massive variation of mental states, disorders and the entire field of media effects and child psychology.

But consider for example the link between violent video games and prosocial outcomes. The effect sizes are tiny. The downsides of additional filters will very likely outweigh anything that can be gained regarding mental health and childhood development etc. I'd wager there are much much more effective ways of improving quality of life, e.g. improving community life, reducing working hours, reduce economic inequality etc.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-019-01069-0

https://www.mayamathur.com/publication/metawarspreprint.pdf

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

#94
post #7

With all the complaints against Youtube, I don't know how they can still be so out of touch with everyone. It's almost as if they're doing it deliberately. They're begging for competition to take over their unprofitable business. Nobody wants to step up.

Nobody wants to admit this because everyone here hates ads, but they (ads) are the thing these other YouTube competitors lack and the reason they're not taking off.

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

#95
post #76
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…

> You're literally talking about a video you let your child watch, while bemoaning the FCC needing to step in. 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 largel…

> 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's mostly because ITV is a television network and YT is a platform, not a publisher. ITV curates the content (and the ads), YT does not. One is meant for children, the other is not, though some third parties are putting content on the YT platform aimed at children. Those are major differences. If you want to let a child alone in front of a screen, turn to television.

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

#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.

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

#97

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.

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

#98

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

Unless they've made huge steps in their profit margins, it's still pretty big consisering they weren't profitable in 2015 [0] and likely still not profitable in 2016 [1]. The only argument you could make is the immense value of user data Google gets from YT to show relevant ads outside of the platform.

0: https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-still-doesnt-make-go...

1: https://fortune.com/2016/10/18/youtube-profits-ceo-susan-woj...

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

#99
post #85
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.

What do their own folks who have children think? There must be some internal pressure on that issue but probably one of those things that get ignored. Why don’t we hear about their internal protests to management and sit outs, etc? If they’re getting fined, it’s more than just public opinion and advocacy it’s preventing illegal activity.

Probably a lot of eye rolling at the fine and whispy statements to each other like, “ they don’t understand, it takes time for the algorithms to get this stuff right.” Typical group think. They can feel like they’re doing good without actually doing it.

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

#100
post #59
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realise that Disney, HBO and Netflix are one-way distributors right? They don't even belong in that list.

We're talking about monetised, profitable, video content aimed at children. These other companies can manage it. YouTube can't, but importantly YouTube wants it both ways - they want to include content that targets children without providing any of the protection that parents expect. And that expectation isn't unreasonable. We don't want parents who helicopter every waking hour of their children's lives, we want to g…

>we want to give parents some freedoms to allow their children to explore and grow.

But there's no reason to include youtube in that, just like you (presumably) don't include the broader internet in that.

Post reply on HN