3 ms·
> Now, however, determining why there is a child in the video It doesn't matter why the child is in the video. The pedophile only cares that there is a child.
by ErikVandeWater 8y ago
> Now, however, determining why there is a child in the video
It doesn't matter why the child is in the video. The pedophile only cares that there is a child. Videos uploaded with children in them will be exploited, regardless of whether they are legitimate.
- pjc50 8y agoBanning the public from uploading videos featuring children, or worse, deleting those already there, will be extremely unpopular. And I'm not convinced it's necessary.
- shkkmo 8y agoHow about disabling comments, proactively deleting illegal content and not helping people find more non-illegal but potentially exploitative content? I feel like you have missed the point. YouTube is actively helping people find this content and making money off of it.
- zamalek 8y agoI honestly don't think you can do anything about pedophiles watching otherwise innocent videos of children. The article claims that there is nudity (via timestamp comments). Separate models could be used to score the video, where a child plus any other potentially sexual content (genitalia, nipples) withholds the video. A withheld video can be appealed (for scenarios such as "breastfeeding tips" or what-have-you), much like copyright strikes, which have an existing process. Obviously the model might have problems discerning between a 17 and 18 year old, but it would catch the most egregious content.
- ScoutOrgo 8y agoSo we should just ban all videos of children then?
- nopriorarrests 8y agoIn this case we will have to ban children movies (Harry Potter?) and TV channels, which sounds too harsh. As long as child is not performing some sexually suggestive stuff on youtube video ("popsicle challenge", wtf) it is OK, probably.