Companies pull ads from YouTube upon discovery of pedophile ring

[vwagenjetta]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43750/watch-disney-nestle-pull-youtube-ads-after-viral-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

[airdeano]

sorry, but to post in the Tech News section, your OP must contain specific criteria as described here: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/11724-posting-guidelines-read-before-posting/

this is the reason it has been moved to General Discussion. correct the OP and it can be moved back, otherwise it will reside here.

[CarlBar]

The article and video are painfully bad. Yes their behaviour that many individuals are engaging in, in the comments is, disturbing.. However none of the examples being shown struck me as being uploaded for the purposes of such commentary. They weren't setup to produce such imagery and where ultimately random family video type stuff. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking means these cannot be considered in any way pornographic or exploitive. I'm not even sure legally speaking where such commentary stands on video that does not feature explicit material of children.

 

So whilst the video does make a more than adequate point about lack of [proper handling of the comments sections of videos. It's claims about child featuring phrnographic video and monetisation on such is a load of made up nonsense, (i'm sure there's the odd video out there made for this purpose and more than a few of those probably are monetised, but it's not the epidemic being made out to be).

[rcmaehl]

3 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

The article and video are painfully bad. Yes their behaviour that many individuals are engaging in, in the comments is, disturbing.. However none of the examples being shown struck me as being uploaded for the purposes of such commentary. They weren't setup to produce such imagery and where ultimately random family video type stuff. I'm pretty sure that legally speaking means these cannot be considered in any way pornographic or exploitive. I'm not even sure legally speaking where such commentary stands on video that does not feature explicit material of children.

 

So whilst the video does make a more than adequate point about lack of [proper handling of the comments sections of videos. It's claims about child featuring phrnographic video and monetisation on such is a load of made up nonsense, (i'm sure there's the odd video out there made for this purpose and more than a few of those probably are monetised, but it's not the epidemic being made out to be).

You're slightly incorrect there. A good amount of these videos are reuploaded by accounts that "collect" these videos. Generally these are the ones you see monotized but any account with a large amount of videos featuring underage kids like this (and obviously not freaking out at the large amount of weird, non-family people commenting strange or highly suggestive things on the video) is the issue. That's the issue that needs to be resolved. The easiest thing to do is just to turn up content ID to 11 on videos containing minors, and not allow duplicates unless specifically specified by the original uploader.

[Chett_Manly]

I'm trying to think of what is actually going to prevent this, and what I have settled on is that YouTube should not monetize child content unless specifically requested by the parent, with proof of guardianship, and only on that channel. 

 

Then on top of that comments will be disabled by default, and if enabled the Parent/Channel Owner bares responsibility for the content there in, but will have automated tools to help enforce standards. 

 

Then only channels approved by a parent can have child content on it, and the only channels with a comments section will be ones where the parent opts in, and takes responsibility. 

 

If a channel with no monetized content attempts to turn on the comments section, they will have to provide proof of ownership of the video, and take responsibility for the content posted. 

 

Failure to moderate the comments will result in them being closed down permanently on that account, and it being demonetized. 

 

I think that would do it, and satisfy ad buyers.

[CarlBar]

19 minutes ago, rcmaehl said:

You're slightly incorrect there. A good amount of these videos are reuploaded by accounts that "collect" these videos. Generally these are the ones you see monotized but any account with a large amount of videos featuring underage kids like this (and obviously not freaking out at the large amount of weird, non-family people commenting strange or highly suggestive things on the video) is the issue. That's the issue that needs to be resolved. The easiest thing to do is just to turn up content ID to 11 on videos containing minors, and not allow duplicates unless specifically specified by the original uploader.

 

I won't contradict you there as i naturally haven't dug into it, but given how tech illiterate some folks are and what you can often find ion random youtube comments (or on imgur or whatever), i'd not be surprised at people not even realising the video had odd comments.

[Chett_Manly]

Just now, CarlBar said:

 

I won't contradict you there as i naturally haven't dug into it, but given how tech illiterate some folks are and what you can often find ion random youtube comments (or on imgur or whatever), i'd not be surprised at people not even realising the video had odd comments.

I watch YouTube mainly on my Roku, so I almost never see comments. Nor I do go looking for them that often when I am watching a video on my PC or Phone. So I likely wouldn't notice it. Which I think is why you need to have someone moderate it, and if no one will or can then turn off the comments.

[Stefan Payne]

7 hours ago, vwagenjetta said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43750/watch-disney-nestle-pull-youtube-ads-after-viral-james-barrett?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=mattwalsh

Well, the Problem is:

a) Youtube is under fire from Media Companys because its a competitor - and the Youtubers are destroying the mainstream Media more and more.

For example this "Jesus type with the Open Shirt policy", wo does political commentary and that person with the beanie. That is an issue. And the mainstream went too far/partisan and now people are moving away from them, towards other peple.

That leads to the attacks Youtube, the "adpocalypse" and the WSJ Article about a swedish dude bying something on "fiver".

 

b) Because of the preassure (and other issues), youtube invest their stuff in the wrong things and doesn't go after the really important things - because they are preoccupied with other stuff.

 

c) Kid's stuff should be for kids on a special domain. 
For example "kids.youtube.com" and be walled in both directions. And also have other default settings...

That is an oversight on their part or they didn't think about it too much...

And also they should inform the people who do "kids stuff" that they have to look at the comments and what kind of users they attract.